This AMR was updated following the publication of data on vacant properties returning to use by Government. This opportunity was also used to update the completions data from the London Development Database. To ensure consistency between the updated figures in KPI 4 (housing completions), KPI5 (affordable completions) and the rest of the AMR, changes were also made to the following:

Executive Summary Paragraph vi Table 1.1 KPI 4 Annex 3 Housing Monitor Key findings and statistics Paragraphs 3.9 to 3.23 Tables 3.1 and 3.4 Figure 4 HPM tables 1-6 and 13-14

The page numbering has also been updated. CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Chapter 1 introduction 7

Scope and purpose of the AMR 8 The London Development Database 9 The London Plan and its Implementation 10

Chapter 2 performance against key performance indicator targets 11

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1 12 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2 14 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 3 16 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 4 18 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 5 21 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 6 25 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 7 26 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 8 27 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 9 31 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 10 33 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 11 34 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 12 36 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 13 38 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 14 39 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 15 41 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 16 42 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 17 45 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 18 46 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 19 47 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 20 49 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 21 51 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 22 54 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 23 55 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 24 57

Chapter 3 additional performance measures and statistics 59

Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2014/15 60 Introduction 60 Key statistics and findings 61 Completions 62 Approvals 67 Starts 68 The pipeline of new homes 68 Gypsy and traveller sites 69 Affordable housing delivery monitor 94 Intermediate housing 95 Local Affordable Housing Policies 96 Achieving an Inclusive Environment 102 Environment and Transport 104 PTAL Map 104 Crossrail funding 106 Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal recommendations 107 Planning 111 Progress With Supplementary Planning Guidance 111 London Boroughs Policy Consultations 111 Progress With Local Plan Core Strategies 115 Opportunity Areas And Areas Of Intensification 117 Planning Decisions 120 London Planning Awards 121

Chapter 4 Other contextual data sources 127

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Looking Ahead 131

FIGURES AND MAPS

Figure 1 Affordable Housing - Three year average performance By borough 24 Figure 2 Office starts and year-end permissions in Central London, 1985-2014 29 Figure 3 CO₂ emissions 52 Figure 4 Total Housing Provision By Year 64 Map 1 Total housing delivery 2014/15 (excluding vacant) 90 Map 2 Total housing delivery as a percentage of London Plan housing monitoring benchmarks (excluding vacant) 91 Map 3 Net affordable housing delivery as a percentage of net conventional housing delivery 2014/15 92 Map 4 Net conventional housing pipeline as at 31/03/2015 93 Figure 5 Change in Affordable Housing Delivery 94 Map 5 Affordable housing delivery 20114/15 (all tenures) 101 Map 6 London Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL) Map 2014 105 Map 7 Opportunity Areas: Projected housing 117 Map 8 Opportunity Areas: Projected Jobs 118 Map 9 Opportunity Areas: Delivery Status 119 i. This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) provides information about progress being made in implementing the policies and addressing the objectives of the London Plan by showing how London is performing against 24 indicators identified in Chapter 8 of the Plan. Although this is the twelfth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the fifth using the KPIs introduced in the 2011 London Plan. These have been slightly modified through the 2015 London Plan, however, as the Plan was adopted in March 2015 and key data are covering the year 2014/15, the 2011 indicators are still used in this AMR.

ii. Chapter 2 provides greater detail on each of the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and the table below summarises progress against each of these KPIs. The KPIs are not policies; they have been chosen as yardsticks to show the direction of travel in implementing the London Plan, and the extent of change, to help monitor progress and identify areas where policy changes may need to be considered.

iii. The London Plan sets six strategic objectives to be delivered by its detailed policies. These are that London should be:

- Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth,
- Objective 2- An internationally competitive and successful city,
- Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods,
- Objective 4- A city that delights the senses,
- Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment,
- Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities.

iv. Different KPIs contribute to measuring the performance of the London Plan against these six objectives;

- Objective 1 – KPIs 1,2,4,5,6,12,14
- Objective 2 – KPIs 2,7,8,9,10,12,17,24
- Objective 3 – KPIs 2,5,10,11,12,15
- Objective 4 – KPIs 1,3,15,19,22,23,24
- Objective 5 – KPIs 1,3,18,19,20,21,22,23
- Objective 6 – KPIs 1,13,14,15,16,17

v. Overall, the performance is positive: 17 KPI targets are met or heading in the right direction. For KPIs 16 (water transport), KPI 23 (river restoration) and KPI 24 (heritage assets) uncertain/mixed trends have turned into clearly positive trends, and for KPI 18 (nature conservation) negative has changed to positive performance. Six KPI targets, however, have not been met or are heading the wrong way. For KPIs 14 (car traffic) and 21 (renewables) positive has turned to negative performance. For one KPI target (KPI 22 – green roofs) we have no new data. Table 1.1 of the attached AMR (within the Executive Summary) provides an overview of the performance of all KPIs. The performance against the individual London Plan Objectives is summarised as follows:

**Objective 1- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth**

vi. A very high and above target proportion of new residential developments in London have been built on previously developed land in the last year, and densities within the density matrix range have fallen slightly again from the previous year. In total over 32,400 dwellings were completed in 2014/15. This meets the 2011 London Plan target. The gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived Londoners continues to decrease.

**Objective 2 - An internationally competitive and successful city**

vii. London’s employment rate (over 71%) has reached its highest annual average level since records began in 1992, almost closing the gap with that for the country as a whole. Office starts have increased substantially on the previous year and the office pipeline remains above the benchmark. The proportion of all B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by another 6% and is well above its benchmark. The rate of loss of industrial land is significantly higher than in the previous two years and is more than 2.5 times above its monitoring benchmark. This trend will be monitored particularly closely.

**Objective 3- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods**

viii. Employment specifically in Outer London has increased by 4.5% on the previous year. Lone parent income support in London is now lower than in England and Wales as a whole. The pupil/teacher ratio in London as a whole remains stable, with more boroughs seeing a reduction than in the previous year. Net affordable housing completions (25% of conventional completions in 2014) are well below the new numeric target with the three-year average affordable homes share down by 6% on the previous year.

**Objective 4- A city that delights the senses**

ix. The proportion of designated heritage assets at risk has decreased slightly. The 2015 river restoration target has been achieved with 2.5 km restored last year alone. Significantly more designated open space (30 ha) has been lost than in the previous year, but it should be noted that over 27 ha of this accounts for one former hospital site (the remaining 3 ha is much less than in the previous year), and the creation of new open space is not recorded. In terms of cycling, last year has seen the highest increase in mode share since 2005, although it is still substantially below the 2026 target.

**Objective 5- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment**

x. Waste recycling rates are stable above 30% and landfilling continues to fall. Development proposals suggest improved performance when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, with estimated CO$\_2$ savings increasing on previous years. There has also been an increase in wind/wave and photovoltaic energy generation, but the estimated total renewable energy production is well below its target. No new data are available for green roofs in the CAZ. There has been a loss of just 2 ha of protected habitat in terms of development approvals, substantially down on the previous year’s figure of 15 ha.

**Objective 6- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities**

Public transport use continues to grow annually, while private car use continues to decline. The proportion of B1 development in locations with high public transport accessibility has risen by another 6% and is well above its benchmark. However, road traffic volumes across the whole of London and in particular in Outer London are rising. In terms of the use of London’s waterways, passenger transport on the Thames is up by almost 20% and freight transport is up by a further 8% on the considerable increase in the previous year. | TABLE 1.1 KPI PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW | |------------------------------------| | **KPI TARGET** | **COMMENT** | | 1. Maintain at least 96 per cent of new residential development to be on previously developed land | Both approvals and completions above target, and completions 2.7% above previous year | | 2. Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix | Below target and slight fall of proportion within density matrix range on previous year | | 3. No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development | Loss of 30 ha, significantly up on previous year, but over 27 ha of this on one former hospital site and new open space not recorded | | 4. Average completions of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year | Up 3,000 on previous year and above 2011 target | | 5. Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year | Below target. Three-year average affordable homes share of overall conventional housing provision down by 6% on previous year | | 6. Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (split by gender) | Difference has shrunk at a slightly faster rate in the least deprived wards | | 7. Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011-2031 | Increase by 1.8% on previous year and continuing reduction in gap between London and the rest of the UK | | 8. Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years | Little change in stock of office permissions remaining at six times the average rate of starts, while starts as such are increasing | | 9. Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industry SPG | Significant increase in loss of industrial land on previous two years and more than 2.5 times above benchmarks | | 10. Growth in total employment in Outer London | Total employment in Outer London increased by 4.5% on the previous year. | | 11. Reduce employment rate gap between BAME groups and the white population; and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs England & Wales average | Little change in BAME gap in recent years; parent income support in London now lower than in England and Wales. | | 12. Reduce the average class size in primary schools | Average classroom size stable and reduction of size in more boroughs than in previous years | | 13. Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of private car per head | Public transport use continues to grow annually, and private car use continues to decline | | KPI TARGET | COMMENT | |------------|---------| | 14 Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole | Against longer term trend car traffic grew in the last year reaching again volumes higher than in 2011 | | 15 Increase in share of all trips by bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 per cent by 2026 | Highest increase in mode share since 2005, but still significantly below 2026 target | | 16 A 50% increase in passengers and freight traffic transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021 | Passenger numbers on Thames up by almost 20% on previous year and freight trade up by 8% | | 17 Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 | With 68% well above benchmark and 6% increase on previous year | | 18 No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. | 2 ha loss to approved development, well below 15 ha recorded last year. New designations not included | | 19 At least 45 per cent of waste recycled/composted by 2015 and 0 per cent of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 | Recycling/composting rates stagnation just above 30%; landfill rate continuing to decline | | 20 Annual average % carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential developments by 2016 and in all developments by 2019 | Increase by 3% compared to previous years to 39% in regulated CO2 emission reductions beyond Building Regulations requirements | | 21 Production of 8550 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 | Increase in generation of wind, wave and photovoltaics, but estimated total production of just over 680 GWh is well below the 2026 target | | 22 Increase in total area of green roofs in the CAZ. | No new data available | | 23 Restore 15km of rivers and streams 2009-2015 with an additional 10km by 2020 | Total 15 km target for 2008 - 2015 has been achieved with 2.5 km restored in the last year | | 24 Reduction in proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a % of the total number of designated heritage assets in London. | The share of assets at risk has decreased slightly in the last year | CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE AMR

1.1 This is the twelfth London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR 12). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor implementation of his Spatial Development Strategy (the London Plan) and collect data about issues relevant to its preparation, review, alteration, replacement or implementation. The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process and in assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation.

1.2 While this is the twelfth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the fifth that uses the six strategic objectives and the suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) introduced in the London Plan published in July 2011. These are slightly modified through the revised London Plan published in March 2015, however the data in this report focusses on the period from 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015, so this AMR will continue to monitor against the KPIs in the 2011 plan. The amended targets, which will be used for the next AMR are listed below:

- KPI 4 – Target net additional homes figure changed from 32,210 to 42,000
- KPI 5 – Target net additional affordable homes figure changed from 13,200 to 17,000
- KPI 19 – Target date for zero biodegradable and recyclable waste to landfill brought forward from 2031 to 2026
- KPI 21 – Target production figure of 8550 GWh of energy from renewables included

What is not changing is the importance the Mayor places on effective monitoring. The London Plan is founded on a “plan-monitor-manage” approach to policy-making, ensuring that strategic planning policies are evidence-based, effective, and changed when necessary.

1.3 The AMR does not attempt to measure and monitor each Plan policy, as this would not recognize the complexity of planning decisions based on a range of different policies. It could also be unduly resource intensive and would raise considerable challenges in setting meaningful indicators for which reliable data would be available. However, these documents together do give a detailed picture of how London is changing, and of the significant contribution the planning system is making to meeting these changes.

1.4 At the core of this AMR are the KPIs set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the 2011 London Plan (see chapter 2 of this document for detailed analysis of the performance of each KPI). However, it should be recognised that a wide range of factors outside the sphere of influence of the London Plan influence the KPIs. The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London’s performance (see chapter 3). Whilst recognising longer-term trends where available, the focus of the monitoring in this AMR is on the year 2014/15.

1.5 Paragraph 8.18 of the London Plan clarifies that the target for each indicator should be regarded as a benchmark, showing the direction and scale of change. These targets contribute to measuring the performance of the objectives set out in Policy 1.1 and paragraph 1.53 of the London Plan but do not represent additional policy in themselves.

1.6 This report draws on a range of data sources, but the GLA’s London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance (see further details about LDD in the following section). The LDD is a “live” system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA, London boroughs and others involved in planning for London. In addition to the LDD, this report draws on details provided by the GLA’s Intelligence Unit, the GLA’s Transport and Environment Team, Transport for London (TfL), English Heritage, the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority.

THE LONDON DEVELOPMENT DATABASE

1.7 The London Development Database (LDD) is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 London boroughs, although the London Legacy Development Corporation has taken responsibility for entering the data for its area and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation have agreed to do the same. The GLA provides the software and carries out a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The Database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate comparable London-wide data in order to produce a diverse range of reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on the work done by London’s planning authorities in providing the data, and the Mayor would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource.

1.8 It should be noted that some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their own AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered into LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system that is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.

1.9 Since the last review of the Information Scheme (the legal document that sets out the roles and responsibilities of the Mayor and the London Boroughs in relation to LDD) in 2013, Prior Approvals which permit changes of use from office to residential without the need for a full planning permission have been included in the scope of the scheme. Other forms of consent that can lead to a change in residential units (including other forms of prior approval and Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development) are currently submitted on a voluntary basis so are not included in the data in our AMR. A decision on whether to make the currently voluntary types of consent mandatory will be taken in the spring of 2016. We will also keep an eye on the Housing and Planning Bill currently going through Parliament and the introduction of ‘permission in principle’.

1.10 A major project to modernise the IT infrastructure that supports the database was finally completed in December 2015. While this work was ongoing it was not possible to make any other changes to the system. We hope that we are now in a position to catch up with changes to the planning system, and to introduce the proposed new data fields that will allow us to measure the length of time between an initial planning permission being granted and the final scheme reaching completion.

1.11 The LDD public page can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/. The ‘Aggregated’ maps showing borough and ward level totals were last updated in December 2014 and are now out of date. Work is ongoing to link these maps to the live data so they update automatically in the same way as the individual site data. It is hoped that this work will be completed in the summer of 2016.

THE LONDON PLAN AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

1.12 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital. It forms part of the statutory development plan for Greater London. London boroughs’ local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor.

1.13 At the centre of the Mayor’s approach to implementation of the London Plan is a suite of documents including in particular Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks, the Implementation Plan and this Annual Monitoring Report.

1.14 The key distinction between the Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes. CHAPTER 2 PERFORMANCE AGAINST KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1

Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land

**Target:** Maintain at least 96% of new residential development to be on previously developed land

2.1 This KPI looks at the proportion of residential planning permissions on previously developed land. The figures in Table 2.1 are shown both by number of units and by site area, although the proportion by number of units is considered to be the key measure. The percentages are arrived at by looking for a net loss of greenfield open space on the permission. The area of greenfield land that is lost is then compared with the proposed residential site area to produce a percentage that is applied to the proposed units. Where both residential and non-residential uses are proposed, the greenfield area is divided proportionately between the two uses.

2.2 97.4% of units approved during 2014/15 are on brownfield land, 1.4% above the 96% target, but a slight decrease of 1% on the previous year. Eight boroughs; Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Croydon, Greenwich, Hammersmith, Havering, Merton and Westminster; are below the 96% target (see Table 2.2).

2.3 The proportion of units completed on brownfield land stands at 98.7%, 2.7% above the benchmark and an increase of 1.7% on the previous year.

| YEAR | % OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | % OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | |--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | | 2006/07| 98.6 | 98 | 97.2 | 96.5 | | 2007/08| 97.3 | 96.7 | 96.6 | 94.8 | | 2008/09| 98.1 | 96.6 | 98.9 | 98.1 | | 2009/10| 97.3 | 96.8 | 98.8 | 97.9 | | 2010/11| 96.8 | 95.3 | 97.1 | 95.7 | | 2011/12| 99 | 97.4 | 97.6 | 95.0 | | 2012/13| 98.2 | 97.8 | 95.7 | 95.3 | | 2013/14| 98.4 | 97.2 | 97 | 96.6 | | 2014/15| 97.4 | 96.7 | 98.7 | 96.7 |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | % OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | % OF DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED ON PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | BY UNITS | BY SITE AREA | | Barking and Dagenham | 83.9% | 73.6% | 100% | 100% | | Barnet | 95% | 88.3% | 98.3% | 98.6% | | Bexley | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Brent | 99.5% | 99.4% | 97.1% | 95.9% | | Bromley | 99.8% | 99.8% | 100% | 100% | | Camden | 99.2% | 99.6% | 100% | 100% | | City of London | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Croydon | 92.7% | 85.5% | 98.1% | 97.3% | | Ealing | 99% | 99.5% | 98.3% | 97.2% | | Enfield | 99.5% | 99.6% | 100% | 100% | | Greenwich | 92.8% | 98% | 99.9% | 99.4% | | Hackney | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 91.1% | 99.5% | 100% | 100% | | Haringey | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Harrow | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Havering | 85.9% | 94.3% | 83.3% | 80% | | Hillingdon | 100% | 100% | 86.1% | 84.3% | | Hounslow | 99.8% | 98.8% | 95.8% | 84.3% | | Islington | 99.8% | 99.9% | 100% | 100% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Kingston upon Thames | 99.7% | 99.6% | 100% | 100% | | Lambeth | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Lewisham | 98% | 98.6% | 100% | 100% | | Merton | 86.9% | 96.5% | 92.9% | 96.4% | | Newham | 99.9% | 99.4% | 100% | 100% | | Redbridge | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Richmond upon Thames | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Southwark | 98.4% | 99.1% | 100% | 100% | | Sutton | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Tower Hamlets | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Waltham Forest | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | | Wandsworth | 100% | 100% | 99.7% | 98.4% | | Westminster | 93.5% | 95.4% | 100% | 100% | | London | 97.4% | 96.7% | 98.7% | 96.7% |

Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2

Optimise the density of residential development

**Target:** Over 95% of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (London Plan Table 3.2)

2.4 The tables 2.3 and 2.4 compare the residential density achieved for each scheme against the optimal density range set out in the Sustainable Residential Quality (SRQ) matrix in the London Plan, taking into account both the site’s Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) and its setting as defined in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment. All units in residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated are included. Class J prior approvals for changes of use from office to residential have been included wherever possible. Density is the result of dividing the total number of units (gross) by the residential site area. In mixed use schemes, the area allocated to non-residential uses and to open space is subtracted from the total site area to give the residential site area. The percentages refer to units not schemes.

2.5 Compliance within the density matrix for approvals during 2014/15 stands at 41%, down on 43% in the previous year. For schemes of 15 units or more, 39% of approved units are in schemes within the optimal range set out in the SRQ matrix.

2.6 Land in London is a scarce resource and building costs in London are high. It is important that land is used appropriately and that schemes are designed to suit the local circumstances, but also that they are deliverable. The Mayor has initiated a review of densities and how they are measured to inform the next London Plan which may lead to changes in the way that densities are calculated or more location-sensitive ways of judging an appropriate density for specific sites. In the meantime, the Mayor will continue to work with boroughs to ensure that schemes are designed at a density that is both appropriate and viable.

### TABLE 2.3 RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS COMPARED TO THE DENSITY MATRIX – ALL SCHEMES

| FINANCIAL YEAR | % OF UNITS APPROVALS WITHIN RANGE | ABOVE RANGE | BELOW RANGE | |----------------|-----------------------------------|-------------|-------------| | 2006/07 | 36% | 60% | 4% | | 2007/08 | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/09 | 41% | 53% | 7% | | 2009/10 | 39% | 56% | 6% | | 2010/11 | 37% | 58% | 5% | | 2011/12 | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2012/13 | 58% | 37% | 5% | | 2013/14 | 43% | 50% | 7% | | 2014/15 | 41% | 51% | 8% |

### TABLE 2.4 RESIDENTIAL APPROVALS COMPARED TO THE DENSITY MATRIX – SCHEMES OF 15 UNITS OR MORE

| FINANCIAL YEAR | % OF UNITS APPROVALS SCHEMES 15+ WITHIN RANGE | ABOVE RANGE | BELOW RANGE | |----------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------|-------------| | 2006/07 | 30% | 69% | 1% | | 2007/08 | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2008/09 | 36% | 62% | 2% | | 2009/10 | 35% | 63% | 2% | | 2010/11 | 31% | 68% | 1% | | 2011/12 | 37% | 60% | 3% | | 2012/13 | 59% | 39% | 2% | | 2013/14 | 40% | 56% | 4% | | 2014/15 | 39% | 57% | 4% |

Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 3

Minimise the loss of Open space

**Target:** No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development

2.7 The performance monitoring for this KPI target looks specifically at changes in the amount of Protected open space as a result of planning permissions approved during 2014/15. It is important to note that designation of new open space for protection is not done through the planning permission process, and is therefore not recorded by the LDD. Re-provision within the planning permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. We are working with partners Greenspace Information for Greater London to see if gains can be identified and included in future editions of the AMR, but at present there remains no accurate measure of net change.

2.8 The types of protection are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Local Open Spaces. Any borough specific designations are recorded as Other Designated Protection. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18. The definition of open space used is based on that found in the now withdrawn PPG 17.

2.9 Table 2.5 shows that the overall loss of protected open space approved during 2014/15 was just under 30 hectares. This is a large increase on the previous financial year where the figure was less than 20 ha. However over 27 hectares of this year’s loss relates to the redevelopment of the Cane Hill Hospital Site in Croydon. This site has now been cleared but previously contained an extensive array of redundant hospital buildings. Although it is entirely designated as green belt, it is also designated as a ‘Major Development Site’ in Croydon’s development plan. The redevelopment of this site is to be carried out in phases, the first of which will be entirely on a site within the footprint of the original hospital buildings. Details of the remaining phases are yet to be confirmed and the losses are based on the information available. The accurate changes will be recorded in future AMRs and may be different from those recorded here. A further 0.3 hectares are on other brownfield sites, including a car park in an industrial estate in Hillingdon with a previous consent to redevelop for industrial uses (56862/APP/2014/170) and a school car park in Hounslow (01145/F/P19). The other losses are on greenfield sites. | BOROUGH NAME | BOROUGH REFERENCE | PROTECTION DESIGNATION | AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA) | |-----------------------|-------------------|------------------------|-------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 14/00739/FUL | Local Open Spaces | 0.200 | | Bexley | 13/01894/FUL | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.026 | | Bromley | 14/02136/FULL1 | Green Belt | 0.260 | | Croydon | 13/02527/PHASE1 | Green Belt | 10.200 | | Croydon | 13/02527/PHASE2 | Green Belt | 10.010 | | Croydon | 13/02527/PHASE2 | Green Belt | 5.440 | | Ealing | P/2013/4113 | Local Open Spaces | 0.064 | | Ealing | P/2014/1459 | Green Belt | 0.015 | | Ealing | PP/2014/2436 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.015 | | Enfield | P14-00271PLA | Local Open Spaces | 0.040 | | Greenwich | 14/0276 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.175 | | Greenwich | 14/0657 | Other Designated Protection | 0.012 | | Harrow | P/3757/14 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.442 | | Havering | P0328/13 | Green Belt | 0.020 | | Havering | P0813/14 | Local Open Spaces | 0.104 | | Havering | P0923/14 | Green Belt | 0.340 | | Havering | P1257/13 | Green Belt | 0.180 | | Havering | P1728/14 | Green Belt | 0.190 | | Hillingdon | 56862/APP/2014/170| Green Belt | 0.200 | | Hounslow | 00176/D/P10 | Metropolitan Open Land | 0.081 | | Hounslow | 00784/J/P1 | Green Belt | 0.033 | | Hounslow | 01145/F/P19 | Green Belt | 0.119 | | Islington | P2013/4952/FUL | Local Open Spaces | 0.024 | | Lambeth | 14/05864/RG3 | Local Open Spaces | 0.002 | | Sutton | D2014/69542 | Other Designated Protection | 0.007 | | London | | | 29.699 |

Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 4

Increase supply of new homes

**Target:** Average completion of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year.

2.10 This target comprises three elements:

- conventional completions of self-contained houses and flats,
- the non-conventional supply of student bedrooms and non self-contained accommodation in hostels and houses in multiple occupation
- long-term empty properties (referred to as ‘vacants’) returning to use.

The first two are taken from the London Development Database, the third uses Council Tax data published by CLG. The components of this 32,210 total at borough level can be found in Annex 4 of the London Plan.

2.11 Net conventional completions stand at 28,191, with 4,369 non-conventional completions, representing 103% of the 31,466 combined conventional and non-conventional target in the 2011 London Plan. The number of long-term vacant properties for London overall has risen by 120, reducing the total net additional dwellings slightly to 32,440, but they still remain just above the target figure.

2.12 The conventional figure is up by 2,878 from the 25,313 completions in 2013/14 (revised up from 23,986 recorded in AMR 11).

2.13 The non-conventional figure of 4,369 is a slight increase on the previous year’s figure of 4,298 (revised from 4,339 in AMR 11), well above the levels seen in previous years and the 1,634 benchmark in the 2011 London Plan. This net increase is entirely down to the delivery of new student accommodation as there has been a net decrease in sui generis (SG) accommodation of hostels, large houses in multiple occupation and other non-self-contained residential units. These losses have led to the creation of nearly 700 residential units, as well as a range of non-residential uses including a fire station, a hospital and other health facilities, a hotel, offices and a private members club. The major residential gains have been achieved through demolition and rebuild, although changes of use to a smaller number of self-contained residential units has provided over 150 new homes of a higher standard than the accommodation they have replaced.

2.14 The other element of the London plan monitoring benchmark is for 749 empty homes to return to use each year. This is measured using the Government’s housing live table 615 and taking the net change in the number of long term empty properties (longer than 6 months). The data covers the period to October each year so does not align to the reporting period in the AMR, but represents the best source of information available. The latest data shows a net increase in the number of long term vacant properties meaning they reduce the total net additional dwellings by 120 units. 2.15 These are long-term benchmarks and individual years will vary over the development cycle. The increase in conventional completions in particular for the second year in a row suggests that the development industry is recovering from the impacts of the economic downturn. The completions observed this year are 230 above the benchmark in the London Plan 2011, but would still be 23% below the new benchmarks in the London Plan 2015. Schemes started during 2014/15 include over 40,000 residential units (conventional supply) for the second year in a row, and there is capacity for over 260,000 homes in the pipeline (up from 240,000 in the previous year). In addition there are over 37,000 non-conventional units in the pipeline. This shows that there is potential for the delivery of an increased number of new homes in the coming years. The revised population projections and increased housing delivery benchmarks set out in the London Plan 2015 show that the need for additional housing is more pressing than ever.

### TABLE 2.7 NUMBER OF NET HOUSING COMPLETIONS BY BOROUGH 2014/15

| BOROUGH | NET CONV | NET NON-CONV | LONG-TERM EMPTY HOMES RETURNED TO USE\* | TOTAL | LONDON PLAN TARGET | % OF TARGET | |--------------------------|----------|--------------|----------------------------------------|-------|--------------------|-------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 512 | 0 | 57 | 569 | 1,064 | 53% | | Barnet | 1,327 | -120 | -120 | 1,087 | 2,254 | 48% | | Bexley | 811 | 9 | -61 | 759 | 337 | 225% | | Brent | 1,605 | -72 | 135 | 1,668 | 1,065 | 157% | | Bromley | 407 | -16 | -28 | 363 | 501 | 72% | | Camden | 459 | 1,083 | 8 | 1,550 | 665 | 233% | | City of London | 226 | 0 | 4 | 230 | 109 | 211% | | Croydon | 1,520 | 74 | -281 | 1,313 | 1,332 | 99% | | Ealing | 883 | 93 | -514 | 462 | 890 | 52% | | Enfield | 401 | -6 | 224 | 619 | 559 | 111% | | Greenwich | 1,146 | 226 | 121 | 1,493 | 2,594 | 58% | | Hackney | 1,612 | -8 | 36 | 1,640 | 1,158 | 142% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 815 | 533 | 178 | 1,526 | 614 | 249% | | Haringey | 629 | -17 | -273 | 339 | 820 | 41% | | Harrow | 410 | -8 | -16 | 386 | 352 | 110% | | Havering | 642 | 0 | 59 | 701 | 972 | 72% | | Hillingdon | 927 | 0 | 6 | 933 | 423 | 221% | | Hounslow | 897 | 0 | 335 | 1,232 | 474 | 260% | | Islington | 861 | 282 | -314 | 829 | 1,172 | 71% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 982 | -32 | -39 | 911 | 584 | 156% | | Kingston upon Thames | 526 | 60 | 22 | 608 | 374 | 163% | | Lambeth | 1,406 | 447 | 212 | 2,065 | 1,197 | 173% | | Lewisham | 1,440 | 0 | -131 | 1,309 | 1,105 | 118% | | Merton | 421 | -9 | 56 | 468 | 318 | 147% | | Newham | 1,928 | 993 | -415 | 2,506 | 2,501 | 100% | | Redbridge | 257 | 0 | 17 | 274 | 759 | 36% | | Richmond upon Thames | 293 | -18 | 56 | 331 | 245 | 135% | | Southwark | 1,141 | 824 | 63 | 2,028 | 2,007 | 101% | | Sutton | 427 | 0 | 96 | 523 | 211 | 248% | | Tower Hamlets | 930 | 0 | -64 | 866 | 2,887 | 30% | | Waltham Forest | 672 | 0 | 16 | 688 | 761 | 90% | | Wandsworth | 941 | -13 | 174 | 1,102 | 1,143 | 96% | | Westminster | 737 | 64 | 261 | 1,062 | 770 | 138% | | London | 28,191 | 4,369 | -120 | 32,440| 32,210 | 101% |

Source: The London development database

- Source DCLG Housing live table 615 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants) KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 5

An increased supply of affordable homes

**Target:** Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year

2.16 This KPI measures the completion of affordable units as granted in planning permissions recorded on the London Development Database (LDD). It is a net figure for conventional completions of new homes, with unit losses deducted from the total. The tenure of the completed units is as set out in the s106 legal agreement. It does not attempt to measure acquisitions of units by Housing Associations or transfers of stock post completion.

2.17 Table 2.8 shows that during 2014/15 a net total of 6,985 affordable units were completed. This represents a slight increase from the previous year’s figure of 6,934 (revised upwards from 6,592 published in last AMR).

2.18 The share of affordable housing has also fallen - from 27% to 25% of net housing supply with the total level of conventional completions increasing.

2.19 In gross terms (not subtracting demolitions and other losses) 8,486 affordable units were completed. This is higher than the 7,954 completed in the previous years.

2.20 Net affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, particularly at a local level. Therefore it is more meaningful to measure individual borough delivery against a longer term average. Table 2.8 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2014/15. During this period affordable housing output averaged 28% of total provision, down 6% on the 34% reported in the last AMR.

2.21 Figure 2.1 shows the three-year average performance of individual boroughs relative to the London-wide average of 28%. Over the three years, Haringey has reported the highest % of affordable housing. At 54% it is the only borough to exceeded 50% of total provision.

2.22 The lowest proportion was recorded in Bromley (1%), the City of London (3%), followed by Redbridge (9%) and Westminster (12%). Bromley’s negative figure for 2014/15 is due to two developments in Orpington;

- 211 social rented units were replaced by 58 affordable units (44 social rented and 14 intermediate) as part of phase 3 of the Ramsden estate regeneration (09/02931/FULL1).
- 104 social rented units were replaced by 10 intermediate units at the new Ridge development formerly known as Alkham and Horton Towers (10/03698/FULL1).

2.23 Bromley’s three year average has been further decreased by changes that have been made to LDD. The 2012/13 figure reported in last year’s AMR (20%) has been corrected and is now -13%. This is due to the shifting of existing units on LDD as a result of analysing the net figures across the various estate renewal schemes.

2.24 As noted in previous AMRs, the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target is measured in gross terms and includes both new build and acquisitions, whereas the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply; that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target and completions can fall to be counted in different years. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database, and this definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes. Monitoring gross affordable housing delivery and the achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based official statistics provided by DCLG. See the Affordable Housing Delivery Monitor in Chapter 3 for more details.

### TABLE 2.8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUTPUT AS A PROPORTION OF OVERALL CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PROVISION OVER THE THREE YEARS TO 2014/15

| BOROUGH | TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS | AFFORDABLE AS % OF TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------| | | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | TOTAL | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | ALL YEARS | | Barking and Dagenham | 243 | 588 | 14 | 845 | 48% | 68% | 3% | 45% | | Barnet | 408 | 320 | 368 | 1,096 | 29% | 26% | 28% | 28% | | Bexley | 30 | 166 | 170 | 366 | 7% | 31% | 21% | 21% | | Brent | 224 | 243 | 706 | 1,173 | 34% | 35% | 44% | 40% | | Bromley | -68 | 140 | -54 | 18 | -13% | 21% | -13% | 1% | | Camden | 299 | 201 | 61 | 561 | 53% | 40% | 13% | 37% | | City of London | 0 | 24 | 0 | 24 | 0% | 6% | 0% | 3% | | Croydon | 415 | 176 | 638 | 1,229 | 46% | 14% | 42% | 33% | | Ealing | 326 | 185 | 59 | 570 | 32% | 25% | 7% | 22% | | Enfield | 243 | 164 | 85 | 492 | 44% | 32% | 21% | 34% | | Greenwich | 87 | 679 | 286 | 1,052 | 27% | 51% | 25% | 37% | | Hackney | 576 | 574 | 498 | 1,648 | 46% | 47% | 31% | 40% | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 107 | 96 | 172 | 375 | 24% | 15% | 21% | 20% | | Haringey | 352 | 150 | 405 | 907 | 58% | 33% | 64% | 54% | | Harrow | 310 | 33 | 96 | 439 | 44% | 11% | 23% | 31% | | Havering | 127 | 237 | 276 | 640 | 45% | 34% | 43% | 40% | | Hillingdon | 406 | 93 | 78 | 577 | 26% | 15% | 8% | 19% | | Hounslow | 49 | 80 | 279 | 408 | 21% | 9% | 31% | 20% | | Islington | 315 | 358 | 220 | 893 | 30% | 29% | 26% | 28% | | Kensington & Chelsea | 4 | 164 | 196 | 364 | 7% | 70% | 20% | 29% | | Kingston upon Thames | 38 | 84 | 59 | 181 | 18% | 32% | 11% | 18% | | Lambeth | 269 | 346 | 358 | 973 | 42% | 30% | 25% | 30% | | Lewisham | 563 | 155 | 418 | 1,136 | 33% | 22% | 29% | 29% | | Merton | 196 | 138 | 94 | 428 | 43% | 31% | 22% | 32% | | Newham | 305 | 503 | 568 | 1,376 | 30% | 25% | 29% | 28% | | Redbridge | 52 | 2 | 16 | 70 | 20% | 1% | 6% | 9% | | Richmond upon Thames | 167 | 109 | 5 | 281 | 34% | 29% | 2% | 24% | | Southwark | 488 | 453 | 69 | 1,010 | 46% | 27% | 6% | 26% | | Sutton | 103 | 49 | 121 | 273 | 44% | 13% | 28% | 26% | | Tower Hamlets | 274 | 150 | 251 | 675 | 26% | 17% | 27% | 23% | | Waltham Forest | 269 | 3 | 281 | 553 | 59% | 1% | 42% | 36% | | Wandsworth | 308 | 224 | 144 | 676 | 34% | 19% | 15% | 22% | | Westminster | 125 | 47 | 48 | 220 | 22% | 9% | 7% | 12% | | London | 7,610 | 6,934 | 6,985 | 21,529| 34% | 27% | 25% | 28% |

Source: London Development Database FIGURE 1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - THREE YEAR AVERAGE PERFORMANCE BY BOROUGH

Source: The London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 6

Reducing health inequalities

**Target:** Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women)

2.25 Figures on life expectancy at birth are produced at ward level based on mortalities over a ten year period. The London Plan’s regeneration areas (policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output areas (Isosas), which are not directly comparable with ward boundaries. As a proxy measure the 20% most deprived wards in London were identified using calculations from the Isosa based Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010. The figures for each deprivation quintile are simple averages of the published figures.

2.26 When comparing the figures for 2005-09 and 2010-14 (see table 2.9), the difference in the life expectancy at birth in the most deprived wards has shrunk at a slightly faster rate compared to both the London average and the least deprived wards. The gap between top and bottom quintile for males has reduced from 5.3 to 4.4 years, while the gap for women has reduced from 3.4 years to 2.8 years. Due to the methods used to calculate this as explained above, a degree of variability would be expected, and a comparison of the figures for the two time periods needs to be treated with some caution.

| YEAR | MALE 2005-2009 | 2010-2014 | FEMALE 2005-2009 | 2010-2014 | |------|----------------|-----------|------------------|-----------| | Most deprived 20% wards | 75.2 | 78.0 | 80.7 | 83.2 | | Least deprived 20% wards | 80.4 | 82.4 | 84.2 | 86.0 | | London average | 77.7 | 80.0 | 82.2 | 84.0 | | Difference - most deprived to least deprived | 5.2 | 4.4 | 3.5 | 2.8 | | Difference - most deprived to London average | 2.5 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.8 |

Figures may not sum due to rounding Source: GLA using ONS mortality data (vital stats) and ONS mid-year population estimates KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 7

Sustaining economic activity

**Target:** Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011–2031

2.27 Table 2.10 shows that London saw a rise in its employment rate during 2014 by 1.8% on previous year, as the economy continued its recovery following a downturn between 2009 and 2011. This has taken London’s employment rate to its highest annual average level at any time since records began for London in 1992.

2.28 The difference between London and the rest of the UK has also continued to improved, down to 1% in 2014.

2.29 The 2004 - 2013 data in table 2.10 includes revisions made by ONS in March 2015. The data has been reweighted in line with the latest ONS estimates following the 2011 Census, which provides more accurate population information than before.

| YEAR | LONDON WORKING-AGE RESIDENTS IN EMPLOYMENT | LONDON RESIDENTS OF WORKING AGE | EMPLOYMENT RATE %# | |------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------| | 2004 | 3,433,700 | 5,039,000 | 68.1 | | 2005 | 3,476,500 | 5,112,400 | 68.0 | | 2006 | 3,528,500 | 5,183,500 | 68.1 | | 2007 | 3,608,400 | 5,262,000 | 68.6 | | 2008 | 3,699,400 | 5,351,500 | 69.1 | | 2009 | 3,695,600 | 5,443,400 | 67.9 | | 2010 | 3,719,200 | 5,524,000 | 67.3 | | 2011 | 3,787,900 | 5,630,500 | 67.3 | | 2012 | 3,867,000 | 5,669,600 | 68.2 | | 2013 | 3,972,000 | 5,721,500 | 69.4 | | 2014 | 4,113,300 | 5,775,700 | 71.2 |

# This includes self-employment

Source: Annual Population Survey KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 8

Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market

**Target:** Stock of office planning permissions should be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years.

**The ratio**

2.30 In this edition of AMR we continue to use data from both EGi London Offices and the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data, the ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end-2015 was 6.0:1 (Figure 1). This ratio has changed little from 2014, having fallen from a peak in 2010 and 2011. In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2014, the ratio of permissions to starts was 5.9:1 according to EGi and 3.2:1 according to LDD.

2.31 Although the EGi ratio remains comfortably ahead of the 3:1 benchmark, the LDD ratio has moved very close to the benchmark (it should be remembered that while the LDD is an internally consistent database, over the long-term the permissions it records have been 60-70% of those from EGi). Thus, while this trend should now be monitored very closely, it should be in the context of other indicators which will also inform a London Plan review.

2.32 Final permissions and starts data from LDD for 2015 are not yet available, hence the absence of a ratio for that year. The variation in the ratios can be accounted

| YEAR | EGI | LDD | |------|-------|-------| | 2004 | 11.9:1| 6.4:1 | | 2005 | 8.1:1 | 7.4:1 | | 2006 | 8.3:1 | 8.7:1 | | 2007 | 6.3:1 | 4.7:1 | | 2008 | 7.5:1 | 4.1:1 | | 2009 | 10.0:1| 7.0:1 | | 2010 | 13.0:1| 11.6:1| | 2011 | 13.5:1| 8.0:1 | | 2012 | 8.3:1 | 3.9:1 | | 2013 | 7.1:1 | 4.5:1 | | 2014 | 5.9:1 | 3.2:1 | | 2015 | 6.0:1 | n/a |

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database

Central London is defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth. for by the different definitions used in the datasets(^1). It is known that the EGi database provides a more comprehensive coverage than LDD and, in particular, contains a much greater amount of data on the refurbishment market.

**Starts and permissions**

2.33 Based on EGi data, Figure 2 shows that 2015 saw starts of 839,044 sq m.(^2) The 2015 figure is a substantial increase on the 488,561 sq m achieved in 2014, and higher than the ten year average of 504,000 sq m. When compared to the very long run, it is also higher than the 1985-2015 average of 584,500 sq m. The three year average for starts over the period 2013-2015 is 610,000 sq m.

2.34 There were six starts of 30,000 sq m or more. Four of these were in the City, namely: 100 Bishopsgate (80,673 sq m); Fleet Building, 70 Farringdon Street (78,402 sq m); 10 Fenchurch Avenue (36,240 sq m) and 52-54 Lime Street (34,579 sq m). One of the non-City schemes was the Here East project at Waterden Road in Hackney (41,919 sq m); and the other was at the BBC Television Centre project at White City in Hammersmith & Fulham (48,094 sq m).

2.35 Unimplemented office permissions at year end 2015 totalled 3,632,376 sq m according to the EGi data (compared to 3,390,534 sq m at the end of 2014). The 2015 figure compares to a ten year average of 3,865,450 sq m.

2.36 As with last year’s monitoring, the permissions are dominated by activity in Docklands: there are a total of eight proposals of more than 100,000 sq m, of which four are in E14. These schemes include: Wood Wharf, Preston’s Road (276,287 sq m); North Quay, Aspen Way (222,036 sq m); Riverside, Westferry (185,283 sq m) and Heron Quays, Bankside (103,886 sq m). The other schemes over 100,000 sq m are at Battersea Power Station (157,777 sq m); 22 Bishopsgate (148,339 sq m); King’s Cross (115,326 sq m) and at 49 Leadenhall in the City (105,033 sq m).

2.37 These eight schemes together account for 36% of the consented space at the

______________________________________________________________________

(^1) EGi data for permissions are based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of S106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross. LDD data exclude refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, which are included by EGi. In addition EGi data for starts are based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition).

(^2) All figures cited are sq m net internal area. end of 2015. The mean size of unimplemented permissions was highest in Tower Hamlets, at 26,389 sq m; followed by Lambeth at 16,509 sq m and the City of London at 15,941 sq m.

Overview

2.38 The central London office market performed well in 2015. Take-up remained above the long-term average, and exceeded the 2014 level. As a result of strong take-up and relatively constrained supply, availability levels continued to fall. Inevitably, rents moved upwards. Headline prime rents continued to rise in the City, reaching £65-70 per sq ft; while those in the West End soared above £80 per sq ft generally, reaching over £100 per sq ft in certain prized markets, including Mayfair and St James’s.

2.39 **Tight supply** The impact of supply constraint has been particularly acute in the West End, where availability levels fell to around 3% - the lowest level since the 1980s. New supply in the West End will continue to be constrained into 2016. Tight supply has also remained a feature of the City, although not to the extent of the West End with availability running at around 5%, lessening the impact on rents which remain competitive in central London. As noted above, a number of key schemes got underway during the year, including 100 Bishopsgate; 70 Farringdon Street; 10 Fenchurch Avenue and 52-54 Lime Street. Supply in the City is set to be augmented by two new towers: 22 Bishopsgate and details emerging on 1 Undershaft. 2.40 **Pre-lets** Supply constraints have meant that pre-lets have become a feature of the market. Two of the most high profile in the West End involved social media company Facebook taking around 21,000 sq m at the former Royal Mail sorting office site at One Rathbone Square; and music label Universal Music UK taking 17,000 sq m at 4 Pancras Square, King’s Cross. In the City, one of the most significant deals of the year involved law firm Ashurst in pre-letting around 25,000 sq m at the Fruit & Wool Exchange, Brushfield Street, E1 (notably on the fringe of the City market). In the core, Royal Bank of Canada pre-let 25,000 sq m at Brookfield’s 100 Bishopsgate.

2.41 **Footloose occupiers** In recent years, evidence has emerged of occupiers becoming more footloose, and in the West End this has involved an ‘eastward migration’ – occupiers moving to Midtown and the City to find available space at an acceptable rent. Two notable examples in 2015 included wealth manager Rathbone Brothers moving from Mayfair and construction consultant Turner & Townsend vacating Covent Garden. Also, TfL’s proposed move, mainly from Victoria, to the International Quarter at Stratford should be mentioned.

2.42 As rents in Shoreditch have risen sharply to equal those in the City, there is also evidence of an outflow from the area into Aldgate; a new cluster is emerging around King’s Cross, and the South Bank is growing in importance. Aldgate Tower is a good example of footloose occupiers. The 30,000 sq m building secured a final letting of 10,000 sq m in 2015, to engineering design firm Aecom, who will join law firm Ince & Co, Intellectual Property Office, Tag, Uber and WeWork.

2.43 **Flexible space market** Also of significance in the City in 2015 was Brookfield’s pre-let of Moor Place to co-work space provider WeWork. At around 17,000 sq m, it was by far the largest ever flexible space deal in London. The flexible space market has continued to expand in central London, responding to demand from the growing number of SMEs, particularly in the financial, professional and creative sectors.

2.44 **Loss of office stock** One area of concern is the impact of Permitted Development Rights in those central area fringe locations lying just beyond the CAZ and Tech City exemptions. Office premises here are coming under intense pressure for conversion to residential uses. The impact has been a sharp decline in the availability particularly of secondary stock, suitable for those businesses that are functionally part of the core area, but unable to pay prime rent. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 9

Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available

**Target:** Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG

2.45 Table 2.12 shows an estimated total of 96.6 hectares of industrial land recorded in planning approvals for transfer to other uses in 2014/15. About 38% of the area approved for transfer was in West London and a further 30% in East London. The largest individual site transfers in planning approvals include

- the Former Dairy Crest Site, 58 Wood Lane in Hammersmith and Fulham (just under 10 hectares),
- the Former Area Food Depot, Victoria Road in Hillingdon (6 hectares) and
- Wood Wharf, Preston Road in Tower Hamlets (5 hectares).

2.46 Over 90% of the approvals involved transfers of less than one hectare of industrial land.

2.47 Table 3.12 shows that industrial land release in 2014/15 planning approvals was more than that in 2012/13 and 2013/14 and more than two and half times the annual benchmark in the London Plan and the Land for Industry and Transport SPG. The four year average release in planning approvals 2011/12 to 2014/15 is 87 hectares per annum – slightly above the annual average rates of release in 2001-2006 and 2006-2011. In 2014/15 the SPG benchmark was exceeded in all sub-regions and, in absolute terms, most significantly in West London.

2.48 These trends in industrial land release have been investigated in more detail by the GLA in a recent report (London’s Industrial Land Supply and Economy Study 2015. GLA, February 2016.)

2.49 The study found that the rate of release of industrial land (measured in completed developments and analysis of map based surveys) was 105 ha per annum over the period 2010 to 2015. The total stock of industrial land in 2015 was just under 7,000 hectares. A total of 189 hectares of industrial land had planning approval (but development not yet started) for change to non-industrial use. Proposed future industrial land release in Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks, Local Plans and Housing Zones could result in a further reduction of 645 hectares. This analysis of the planning pipeline suggests that recent London-wide trend rates of release will continue in the coming years. | SUB-REGION | ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2001-2006 | ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2006-2011 | ANNUAL AVERAGE RELEASE 2011-2014 | RELEASE IN PLANNING APPROVALS 2011/12 | RELEASE IN PLANNING APPROVALS 2012/13 | RELEASE IN PLANNING APPROVALS 2013/14 | RELEASE IN PLANNING APPROVALS 2014/15 | LONDON PLAN/SPG ANNUAL BENCHMARK 2011-2031 | |------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| | Central | 6 | 5 | 9.1 | 9.4 | 6.0 | 7.3 | 13.5 | 2.3 | | East | 57 | 54 | 31.4 | 38.6 | 29.2 | 28.3 | 29.4 | 19.4 | | North | 2 | 2 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 6.5 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 3.4 | | South | 11 | 4 | 14.0 | 31.7 | 5.1 | 6.7 | 12.3 | 4.4 | | West | 10 | 18 | 28.2 | 35.1 | 25.7 | 15.6 | 36.3 | 7.2 | | London | 86 | 83 | 86.8 | 116.3 | 72.5 | 61.6 | 96.6 | 36.7 |

Source: LDD, London Plan (March 2015) and SPG Land for Industry and Transport. Figures include release of land currently in industrial use and in mixed industrial/non-industrial use sites. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 10

Employment in Outer London

**Target:** Growth in total Employment in Outer London

2.50 Table 2.13 shows the total number of jobs, including self-employed, from 2004 to 2014, and the proportion of the Outer London boroughs, which has been stable at 39% for several years. In 2011 the total number of jobs in Outer London had fallen by 76,000 from its 2008 peak. However, since 2011 there has been a strong recovery in employment, increasing by 226,000 between 2011 and 2014 (11.8 %), including by 4.5% in the last year alone. However, this represents a weaker rise since 2011 than in both inner London (14.0 %) and London overall (13.2%).

2.51 In 17 of the 19 Outer London boroughs the number of employee jobs has grown since 1984. However the growth has not been as large as in Inner London (17.0 % compared to 32.8 %). London overall experienced an increase of 26.3 %. The changes in employee jobs numbers for individual boroughs have varied significantly. Twelve Outer London boroughs achieved over 15 % growth since 1984, whereas two saw a reduction.

2.52 The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy. The Commission’s work has made a major contribution to relevant London Plan policies.

| YEAR | OUTER LONDON | LONDON | % IN OUTER LONDON | |------|--------------|--------|------------------| | 2004 | 1,918,000 | 4,565,000 | 42% | | 2005 | 1,937,000 | 4,667,000 | 42% | | 2006 | 1,963,000 | 4,717,000 | 42% | | 2007 | 1,945,000 | 4,772,000 | 41% | | 2008 | 1,986,000 | 4,910,000 | 40% | | 2009 | 1,924,000 | 4,808,000 | 40% | | 2010 | 1,923,000 | 4,803,000 | 40% | | 2011 | 1,911,000 | 4,879,000 | 39% | | 2012 | 1,998,000 | 5,088,000 | 39% | | 2013 | 2,047,000 | 5,249,000 | 39% | | 2014 | 2,138,000 | 5,520,000 | 39% |

Source: Office for National Statistics; GLA Economics calculations

Note: Estimates of employee jobs by borough are calculated by applying borough shares of total London employee jobs from the ONS Business Register and Employment Survey to the London total employee jobs component of ONS Workforce Jobs (WFJ). Self-employed jobs are calculated by applying estimates of borough shares of London’s total self-employed jobs from the Annual Population Survey data to the London total self-employed jobs component of WFJ. Employee and self-employed jobs are then added together for an estimate of total employment. Data for previous years has been amended based on revised population figures. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 11

Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the Employment market

**Target:** Reduce the employment rate gap between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs the average for England & Wales

2.53 Table 2.14 shows that employment rates for both white and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups continue to increase. The gap between employment rates for white vs BAME Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend. Over the last ten years the gap has reduced by 2.3%. However, there has been little change in recent years. In 2004, the gap was 16.6% points and the downward trend reduced this to 13.4% points by 2010. Since then the gap has increased slightly and stands at 14.3% in 2014.

2.54 The 2004 - 2014 data in table 2.14 includes revisions made by ONS in March 2015. The data has been reweighted in line with the latest ONS estimates following the 2011 Census, which provides more accurate population information than before.

2.55 Table 2.15 shows that in terms of income support for lone parents with dependent children the gap between London and England and Wales has now closed. In London it fell by four % points between 2013 and 2014 compared with two points in England and Wales overall.

2.56 This now makes the proportion of lone parents claiming income support in London lower than in England and Wales by one % point. This reversed the gap that had been 8 % in 2004 and even 13 % in 2006.

2.57 It should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support allowance (esa) in 2008, lone parents with health issues who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim esa. This has to be considered when comparing different years for the ‘Lone Parents on Income Support’ series. However, it does not affect the comparison of data between London and England and Wales.

### TABLE 2.14 EMPLOYMENT RATES FOR WHITE AND BAME GROUPS, AGED 16-64, BY CALENDAR YEAR

| YEAR | ALL PERSONS | WHITE GROUPS | BAME GROUPS | EMPLOYMENT RATE GAP WHITE/ BAME | |------|-------------|--------------|-------------|-------------------------------| | | IN EMPLOY- | IN EMPLOY- | IN EMPLOY- | | | | MENT RATE %| MENT RATE % | MENT RATE %| | | 2004 | 3,433,700 | 2,518,200 | 907,600 | 16.6 | | 2005 | 3,476,500 | 2,502,400 | 968,600 | 16.3 | | 2006 | 3,528,500 | 2,489,900 | 1,031,200 | 15.9 | | 2007 | 3,608,400 | 2,495,600 | 1,108,800 | 14.3 | | 2008 | 3,699,400 | 2,554,500 | 1,140,700 | 14.8 | | 2009 | 3,695,600 | 2,566,600 | 1,122,500 | 15.9 | | 2010 | 3,719,200 | 2,507,600 | 1,204,100 | 13.4 | | 2011 | 3,787,900 | 2,512,900 | 1,268,600 | 14.8 | | 2012 | 3,867,000 | 2,554,800 | 1,308,800 | 14.1 | | 2013 | 3,972,000 | 2,623,100 | 1,345,200 | 14.3 | | 2014 | 4,113,300 | 2,702,100 | 1,403,200 | 14.3 |

Source: Annual Population Survey Note that due to changes in the ethnicity questions on the Annual Population Survey during 2011 these estimates cannot be reliably viewed as a timeseries. They can, however, be used to estimate the relative levels of economic activity of different ethnic groups.

### TABLE 2.15 LONE PARENTS ON INCOME SUPPORT IN LONDON VS ENGLAND & WALES

| ANNUAL REPORT | LONDON | ENGLAND AND WALES | DIFFERENCE | |---------------|--------|-------------------|------------| | | LONE PARENT FAMILIES ON IS | AS % OF LONE PARENT FAMILIES | LONE PARENT FAMILIES ON IS | AS % OF LONE PARENT FAMILIES | | | 2004 | 165,120 | 55 | 751,050 | 47 | 8 | | 2005 | 163,620 | 57 | 721,370 | 45 | 12 | | 2006 | 162,770 | 56 | 709,370 | 43 | 13 | | 2007 | 160,450 | 55 | 702,580 | 43 | 12 | | 2008 | 152,520 | 50 | 679,150 | 40 | 10 | | 2009 | 141,720 | 49 | 662,660 | 39 | 10 | | 2010 | 129,100 | 43 | 624,330 | 37 | 7 | | 2011 | 109,200 | 36 | 547,600 | 32 | 4 | | 2012 | 102,590 | 36 | 531,020 | 31 | 5 | | 2013 | 83,050 | 28 | 459,910 | 27 | 1 | | 2014 | 73,300 | 24 | 436,730 | 25 | -1 |

Source: DWP’s Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study extracted from NOMIS

#Lone parent families with dependent children only KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 12

Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services

**Target:** Reduce the average class sizes in primary schools

2.58 Between 2008 and 2015 the average class size across London has increased by one pupil per one teacher class. Over this period 29 London boroughs have seen an increase in the average number of pupils per class, in Redbridge class sizes have remained the same and in the City of London, Waltham Forest and Westminster they have decreased. Over the last three years the London average has remained stable at 27.8 pupils. The figure for England as a whole also remains the same as in 2014 with 27 pupils per class. Class sizes in 16 boroughs have decreased in 2015, compared to 13 and 10 boroughs in the two previous years, in three they remain unchanged and in 14 boroughs they have increased.

2.59 The main drivers of increasing class sizes in London are demographic (primarily reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK), resulting in an increased number of primary school children, as well as challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers. This will continue to be monitored closely.

2.60 The building of new schools is likely to continue to counter this upwards trend. In 2014/15 in London 40 primary schools opened (taken from London Annual Education Report 2015). London Plan Policy 3.18 promotes further improvements by strengthening the importance of education provision, encouraging the establishment of new schools (new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes). The Social Infrastructure SPG, published in May 2015 suggests additional ways to link the provision of schools with housing growth through co-located and multi-use facilities.

2.61 The London Schools Atlas is an innovative interactive online map providing a uniquely detailed and comprehensive picture of London schools, current patterns of attendance and potential future demand for school places. Covering primary and secondary provision, including academies and free schools, the Atlas uses data to illustrate current patterns of demand for school places at a pan-London level for the first time. It also shows projected changes in demand for school places, helping to provide an indicative picture of areas with particular pressure on places in the future. [https://maps.london.gov.uk/webmaps/lsa/](https://maps.london.gov.uk/webmaps/lsa/) | BOROUGH | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2008-2014 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------| | Barking & Dagenham | 26.9 | 27.2 | 27.5 | 27.9 | 27.9 | 28.3 | 28.0 | 1.1 | | Barnet | 27.5 | 27.6 | 27.9 | 28.1 | 28 | 28.2 | 28.4 | 0.9 | | Bexley | 27.3 | 27.8 | 28 | 28.2 | 28.3 | 28.5 | 28.4 | 1.1 | | Brent | 28 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 28.5 | 28.6 | 28.7 | 28.9 | 0.9 | | Bromley | 27.2 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 28.3 | 28.4 | 28.3 | 1.1 | | Camden | 26.9 | 26.6 | 27.1 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 0.7 | | City | 24.8 | 24.7 | 25.9 | 25.9 | 24.7 | 25.9 | 25.9 | 1.1 | | Croydon | 27.6 | 27.7 | 27.9 | 28.1 | 28.2 | 28.2 | 28.2 | 0.6 | | Ealing | 27.5 | 27.2 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 28 | 28.3 | 28.0 | 0.5 | | Enfield | 28.3 | 28.6 | 28.2 | 28.7 | 28.8 | 28.8 | 28.7 | 0.4 | | Greenwich | 26.2 | 26.2 | 26.5 | 26.9 | 27 | 27.1 | 27.4 | 1.2 | | Hackney | 25.8 | 25.8 | 26.1 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.2 | 26.8 | 1 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 25.8 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 26.1 | 26.8 | 26.1 | 26.1 | 0.3 | | Haringey | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 28 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 28.0 | 0.5 | | Harrow | 26.1 | 26.9 | 26.7 | 28 | 28.5 | 28.8 | 29.8 | 3.7 | | Havering | 27 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28 | 28.2 | 28.6 | 28.4 | 1.4 | | Hillingdon | 26.5 | 27.2 | 27.4 | 27.4 | 27.5 | 27.9 | 28.0 | 1.5 | | Hounslow | 27.2 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28.2 | 28.4 | 28.4 | 28.1 | 0.9 | | Islington | 25.5 | 25.5 | 25.3 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 26.3 | 26.6 | 1.1 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 26 | 25.7 | 26.2 | 26.8 | 27 | 26.7 | 26.7 | 0.7 | | Kingston | 27.1 | 27.1 | 27.7 | 27.6 | 27.5 | 27.7 | 27.6 | 0.5 | | Lambeth | 25.8 | 25.6 | 25.7 | 26 | 26.3 | 26.6 | 26.3 | 0.5 | | Lewisham | 25.9 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.8 | 26.9 | 27.2 | 27.2 | 1.5 | | Merton | 26.7 | 27 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 27.9 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 1.1 | | Newham | 26.8 | 27 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 27.9 | 26.6 | -0.2 | | Redbridge | 29.2 | 29.1 | 29 | 29.5 | 29.6 | 29.1 | 29.3 | 0.1 | | Richmond | 26.5 | 26.9 | 27.4 | 28 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 28.5 | 2 | | Southwark | 24.6 | 24.6 | 24.8 | 25.3 | 25.8 | 26.3 | 26.4 | 1.8 | | Sutton | 27.9 | 27.7 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 28.5 | 28.7 | 28.8 | 0.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.9 | 27.3 | 27.7 | 27.6 | 27.7 | 1.4 | | Waltham Forest | 28 | 28.1 | 28.5 | 28 | 28.5 | 28.2 | 28.4 | 0.4 | | Wandsworth | 25.5 | 25.3 | 25.9 | 25.6 | 26.3 | 25.9 | 25.8 | 0.3 | | Westminster | 25.8 | 25.4 | 26.3 | 26.7 | 26.6 | 26.0 | 25.6 | -0.2 | | London | 26.8 | 27 | 27.2 | 27.6 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 27.8 | 1 |

Source: Department for Education KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 13

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head

2.62 Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by over 36%, and increased by 2.4% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by over 21% since 2001, and is down slightly by 0.3% in the latest year. So, in line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow while private transport continues to fall year on year.

2.63 The indices in table 2.17 are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for the Travel in London Report 8 (TfL Planning December 2015). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors.

2.64 Total daily journey stages in 2014 were 31.3 million, up from 30.6 million in 2013, and 5.7 million higher than in 2001.

| YEAR | PUBLIC TRANSPORT INDEX | PRIVATE TRANSPORT INDEX | |------|------------------------|-------------------------| | 2001 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | 2002 | 103.1 | 99.5 | | 2003 | 108.1 | 97.1 | | 2004 | 113.8 | 95.1 | | 2005 | 112 | 92.6 | | 2006 | 114.7 | 92.0 | | 2007 | 124.4 | 90.9 | | 2008 | 128.2 | 86.4 | | 2009 | 127.5 | 85.6 | | 2010 | 127.8 | 84.8 | | 2011 | 131.2 | 82.8 | | 2012 | 133.6 | 80.7 | | 2013 | 134.2 | 78.8 | | 2014 | 136.6 | 78.5 |

Source: Transport for London, ONS Surveys on labour force and international passengers KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 14

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole

2.65 Table 2.18 shows that road traffic volumes across London are still down by 9.1% on 2001 levels – over 16% down in Inner and over 5% in Outer London. However, in the last year traffic volumes for London as a whole were up 1.6% and again reached volumes higher than back in 2011. In Inner London they increased by 1.1%, while traffic in Outer London grew by 1.7%, which takes traffic levels almost up to 2009 levels. If this is a new trend (in Outer London traffic volumes are up for the third year) or an exception it will have be monitored closely.

2.66 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment is required in public transport, such as the £15 billion investment in Crossrail. For further details on developer contributions to Crossrail and the use of CIL receipts please see the environment and transport section of chapter 3. | YEAR | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | All roads: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 32.26 | 32.14 | 31.95 | 31.59 | 31.38 | 31.49 | 31.16 | 30.27 | 30.07 | 29.70 | 29.10 | 28.90 | 28.82 | 29.33 | | Inner London (excl City and Westminster) | 8.98 | 8.90 | 8.84 | 8.66 | 8.51 | 8.52 | 8.58 | 8.29 | 8.19 | 8.05 | 7.82 | 7.57 | 7.42 | 7.52 | | Outer London | 22.04 | 22.03 | 21.92 | 21.72 | 21.66 | 21.76 | 21.42 | 20.90 | 20.83 | 20.63 | 20.28 | 20.35 | 20.43 | 20.81 | | All roads index (2001=100) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0 | 99.6 | 99.0 | 97.9 | 97.3 | 97.6 | 96.6 | 93.8 | 93.2 | 92.1 | 90.2 | 89.6 | 89.3 | 90.9 | | Inner London (excl City and Westminster) | 100.0 | 99.2 | 98.4 | 96.4 | 94.8 | 94.9 | 95.5 | 92.3 | 91.2 | 89.6 | 87.1 | 84.2 | 82.6 | 83.7 | | Outer London | 100.0 | 99.9 | 99.5 | 98.6 | 98.3 | 98.7 | 97.2 | 94.8 | 94.5 | 93.6 | 92.0 | 92.3 | 92.7 | 94.4 |

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 8, section 3.10 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 15

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2% in 2009 to 5% by 2026

2.67 Table 2.19 shows that in 2014 in absolute terms around 0.65 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of over 100% compared to 2001, 10% more than in the most recent year and the highest annual increase of any year since 2001. Table 2.19 also shows that 2.1% of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, compared to 1.2% in 2001. This is the highest annual modal share increase since 2005.

2.68 Growth will need to strengthen further to meet the Mayor’s objective to see a cycling revolution by achieving the target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The London Plan includes a range of policies to help achieve this objective, such as support for the cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme as well as standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development.

| YEAR | DAILY CYCLE STAGES (MILLIONS) | CYCLE MODE SHARE (PERCENTAGE) | |------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------| | 2001 | 0.320 | 1.2 | | 2002 | 0.323 | 1.2 | | 2003 | 0.370 | 1.4 | | 2004 | 0.380 | 1.4 | | 2005 | 0.415 | 1.6 | | 2006 | 0.466 | 1.7 | | 2007 | 0.467 | 1.6 | | 2008 | 0.489 | 1.7 | | 2009 | 0.514 | 1.8 | | 2010 | 0.544 | 1.9 | | 2011 | 0.572 | 1.9 | | 2012 | 0.582 | 1.9 | | 2013 | 0.585 | 1.9 | | 2014 | 0.645 | 2.1 |

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 8, tables 2.3 and 3.4 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 16

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** A 50% increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021

2.69 Table 2.20 includes figures for passenger journeys on all river boat services on the Thames – River Bus, River Tours, Charter Services and also Woolwich Ferry passengers. Woolwich Ferry passenger numbers were only included in the count from 2006/2007. This partly explains the large 122% increase on 2005/2006 figures. From 2013/14 onwards a new passenger counting system linked to the Automatic Identification System (AIS) on board vessels has been used to give a clearer reflection of the total number of passenger journeys on the Thames. This partly explains the 34% increase from 2012/13 figures.

2.70 Despite the baseline changes it is apparent that the number of passengers on the Thames increased until 2011 and after a small decline in 2011/12 and 2012/13, numbers have risen again, and last year’s rise has been the highest since 2000 that was not ‘helped’ by a baseline change. Passenger numbers have also already exceeded the current ten-year target for 2011 – 2021.

2.71 In 2014/2015 two high profile events took place at riverside locations – the ‘Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red’ poppy installation at the Tower of London and the Tall Ships Festival in Greenwich. These events will have contributed towards more people to travel by boat from Tower Pier and Greenwich Pier and had a positive impact on passenger journey numbers.

2.72 TfL continues to lead on delivering the Mayor’s River Action Plan to achieve its target of 12 million annual river passenger journeys by 2020. Key projects aiming to contribute to this include improving ticketing by launching Oyster pay as you go yellow card readers at all piers served by the River Bus in September 2015, with Contactless following in Summer 2016; a new pier opening at Plantation Wharf in late 2015 and delivering three pier extensions in 2016 to increase capacity at TfL’s Bankside, Embankment and Westminster piers; continuing to actively promote river services through marketing; and carrying out signage reviews to better integrate river services with the wider transport network.

2.73 Table 2.21 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry.

2.74 The overall figure is a combination of both (1) the interport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that either enters or leaves the Port of London across the seaward limits) such as sea dredged aggregates or sugar and (2) intraport trade (handled at terminals in Greater London that has its origin or destination within the Port of London or within the seaward limits). Both elements saw an increase in 2014 taking overall cargo a further 8% above the substantial increase in 2013/14. Since 2011 cargo trade has risen by almost one third. In terms of interport traffic, aggregates – as in 2013 – saw increases across most terminals, with particularly strong growth at terminals in Greenwich and Barking and Dagenham. Significant increases in throughput were also seen at terminals in Bexley. Intraport trade was strong in Greater London, with growth in both containerised waste (23%) and aggregates (32%). Transport of Construction, Excavation and Demolition Waste (CE&DW) decreased by 7% as the movements from major infrastructure projects (Crossrail and Lea Tunnel) slowed, although these are likely to be replaced by the substantial commitments associated with the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

| YEAR | NUMBER OF PASSENGERS | % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR | |-----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------| | April 2000 – March 2001 | 1,573,830 | - | | April 2001 – March 2002 | 1,739,236 | + 10.5 | | April 2002 – March 2003 | 2,030,300 | + 16.7 | | April 2003 – March 2004 | 2,113,800 | + 4.1 | | April 2004 – March 2005 | 2,343,276 | + 10.9 | | April 2005 – March 2006 | 2,374,400 | + 1.3 | | April 2006 – March 2007 | 5,260,157 | + 122 | | April 2007 – March 2008 | 5,337,368 | + 1.4 | | April 2008 – March 2009 | 6,179,889 | + 16 | | April 2009 – March 2010 | 6,298,933 | + 2 | | April 2010 – March 2011 | 6,621,116 | + 5 | | April 2011 – March 2012 | 6,602,707 | - 0.2 | | April 2012 – March 2013 | 6,277,244 | - 5 | | April 2013 – March 2014 | 8,411,200 | + 34 | | April 2014 – March 2015 | 10,022,668 | + 19 |

Source: TfL London Rivers Services | YEAR | TONNES OF CARGO | % CHANGE ON PREVIOUS YEAR | |------|----------------|--------------------------| | 2001 | 10,757,000 | - | | 2002 | 9,806,000 | + 9% | | 2003 | 9,236,000 | + 6% | | 2004 | 8,743,000 | - 5% | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | + 6% | | 2006 | 9,337,000 | + 0.5% | | 2007 | 8,642,000 | - 7% | | 2008 | 9,312,000 | + 8% | | 2009 | 8,146,000 | - 13% | | 2010 | 7,754,000 | - 5% | | 2011 | 9,022,000 | + 16% | | 2012 | 8,715,000 | - 3% | | 2013 | 11,087,000 | + 27% | | 2014 | 11,969,000 | + 8% |

Source: Port of London Authority KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 17

Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values

**Target:** Maintain at least 50% of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6

2.75 This indicator aims to show that high-density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport - defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 - 6 being the highest, 0 the lowest. The floorspaces are gross, i.e. they do not subtract associated losses. The data is taken from the London Development Database (LDD) which has a threshold for data submission of 1,000m² for B1 uses, so schemes proposing less than this are not recorded.

2.76 68% of all B1 floorspace approved during 2014/15 is located in areas with good public transport accessibility, well above the benchmark target of 50% and 6% above the previous year’s figure. When just offices are considered, the figure rises to 71% down 1% on the previous year. These figures reflect the location of the proposed floorspace. From roughly 657,000m² of B1 floorspace granted outside the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), less than 30% is in an area of high PTAL, and from 187,000m² of offices outside the CAZ, 32% is in an area of high PTAL. Both percentage figures are higher than in the previous year, but they compare to 98% in the highly accessible CAZ area.

2.77 As noted above, the figures are based on gross approvals with floorspace significantly above last year’s. Overall approvals during 2014/15 would result in a net loss of both B1 and B1a office floorspace for the third year in a row. The loss of office has taken place largely (66% this year) in areas with a high PTAL score.

| PTAL LEVEL | ALL B1 FLOORSPACE (M²) | % | OFFICES (B1A) FLOORSPACE (M²) | % | |------------|------------------------|---|-------------------------------|---| | 5 or 6 | 1030051 | 68%| 1005584 | 71%| | 4 or less | 482631 | 32%| 411885 | 29%| | Total floorspace | 1512682 | 100%| 1417469 | 100%|

Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 18

Protection of biodiversity habitat

**Target:** No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)

2.78 This performance indicator is based on the changes in SINCs as a result of planning permissions granted during 2014/15. Designation of new SINCs is not done through the planning permission process. Re-provision within the permission is taken into account but no positive numbers are recorded meaning a loss is inevitable. The London Development Database records the following conservation designations:

- Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest,
- Site of Metropolitan Importance,
- Site of Borough Grade I Importance
- Site of Borough Grade II Importance
- Site of Local Importance

2.79 Open Space protection designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local Open Space are addressed in KPI 3.

2.80 Table 2.23 shows six approvals on SINCs in 2014/15. The total area covered is 2.02 ha, well below the 15 hectares recorded in the AMR 11. The largest loss is on the Cane Hill hospital site in Croydon, already mentioned in KPI 3. This loss is in the outline part of the scheme and is an estimate based on the information available. It is expected that follow up applications will provide additional, more accurate, details.

| BOROUGH NAME | BOROUGH REFERENCE | NATURE CONSERVATION TYPE | AREA OF OPEN SPACE (HA) | |--------------------|-------------------|------------------------------------------|-------------------------| | Brent | 14/3815 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 0.051 | | Croydon | 13/02527/PHASE2 | Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance | 1.500 | | Ealing | P/2014/1459 | Site of Metropolitan Importance | 0.015 | | Greenwich | 14/0276 | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 0.175 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 2013/05200/RES | Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance | 0.255 | | Islington | P2013/4952/FUL | Site of Local Importance | 0.024 | | **London (hectares):** | | | **2.020** |

Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 19

Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031

**Target:** At least 45% of waste recycled/composted by 2015 and 0% of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031

2.81 Table 2.5 shows that the total amount of local authority collected waste declined by about 800,000 tonnes between 2002/03 and 2012/13, although it has started to increase again over the past two years – by almost 90,000 tonnes.

2.82 London continues to produce the least amount of waste per head of population in the UK and five London boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Islington, Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham) are amongst the top 10 local authorities with the lowest waste generation per head count.

2.83 Table 2.25 also shows that London’s recycling rate for local authority collected waste has increased steadily from 2002 to 2012, reaching 30% in 2012 and remaining above this level for the past three years. However there is still some way to go towards reaching the 45% target that was set for 2015. London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England, in part because it has a relatively high number of flats and less garden waste.

2.84 The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has more than halved since 2010 to 21%. The majority of waste previously going to landfill is being diverted to incineration with energy recovery.

# Other includes material which is sent for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and that disposed through other treatment processes.

~ Total may exceed the sum of rows above; this is accounted for by incineration without energy from waste, which does not exceed 500 tonnes ofondon’s local authority collected waste since 2005/06.

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2013/14, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/env18-local-authority-collected-waste-annual-results-tables

| TABLE 2.25 WASTE TREATMENT METHODS OF LONDON’S LOCAL AUTHORITY COLLECTED WASTE (THOUSANDS OF TONNES) | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Landfill | 3,163 | 3,021 | 2,856 | 2,692 | 2,404 | 2,209 | 1,946 | 1,882 | 1,696 | 1,116 | 911 | 889 | 754 | | (%) | 71.0% | 70.0% | 65.4% | 63.7% | 56.8% | 53.2% | 49.0% | 48.7% | 44.7% | 30.6% | 25.5% | 24.4% | 21% | | Incineration with EfW | 872 | 826 | 869 | 767 | 929 | 919 | 912 | 803 | 896 | 1,303 | 1,462 | 1,525 | 1,680 | | (%) | 20.0% | 19.0% | 19.9% | 18.2% | 21.9% | 22.1% | 22.9% | 20.8% | 23.6% | 35.7% | 40.9% | 41.9% | 46% | | Incineration without EfW | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | (%) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0% | | Recycled/composted | 410 | 494 | 643 | 763 | 844 | 925 | 994 | 1,060 | 1,076 | 1,105 | 1,088 | 1,110 | 1,107 | | (%) | 9.0% | 11.0% | 14.7% | 18.1% | 19.9% | 22.3% | 25.0% | 27.4% | 28.3% | 30.3% | 30.4% | 30.5% | 30.2% | | Other# | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 59 | 101 | 123 | 117 | 130 | 124 | 115 | 116 | 122 | | (%) | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.4% | 2.4% | 3.1% | 3.0% | 3.4% | 3.4% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 3.3% | | Total~ | 4,446 | 4,342 | 4,370 | 4,223 | 4,235 | 4,154 | 3,975 | 3,862 | 3,797 | 3,648 | 3,576 | 3,640 | 3,662 | KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 20

Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development

**Target:** Annual average % carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential developments by 2016 and all developments by 2019

2.85 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan sets out a stepped approach to reaching zero carbon targets – see tables 2.26 and 2.27.

| TABLE 2.26 LONDON PLAN POLICY 5.2 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | YEAR | IMPROVEMENT ON 2010 BUILDING REGULATIONS | | 2010-2013 | 25 per cent | | 2013-2016 | 40 per cent | | 2016-2031 | zero carbon |

| TABLE 2.27 LONDON PLAN POLICY 5.2 CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS FOR NON-DOMESTIC BUILDINGS | |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | YEAR | IMPROVEMENT ON 2010 BUILDING REGULATIONS | | 2010-2013 | 25 per cent | | 2013-2016 | 40 per cent | | 2016-2019 | as per Building Regulations | | 2019-2031 | zero carbon |

Source: London Plan 2015

2.86 An analysis of the energy assessments submitted alongside Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2014 was undertaken by the GLA in 2015 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. Its report reflects a full year of applications assessed against the Mayor’s energy hierarchy and carbon dioxide reduction targets set out in London Plan policy 5.2.

2.87 Applications considered at Stage II in 2014 were assessed against one of three targets, depending on the date they were received by the GLA at Stage I. The London Plan target of 40 percent beyond Part L 2010 was applied to applications received at Stage I from October 2013 (see table 2.28), but only 1 of these schemes advanced to Stage II that year. By contrast, 89 of the 140 applications assessed in 2014 were assessed against this target and a further 7 applications were assessed against the equivalent (but recalibrated) target of 35 % beyond Part L 2013, once this was introduced in 2014. Statistics for applications received each year from 2010 to 2014 reveal there was an overall increase in the regulated CO₂ emissions reductions in 2014 to 39 percent beyond Building Regulations requirements, up from 36 percent in 2012 and 2013 and 33 percent in 2010 and 2011. 2.88 There were only a small number of applications (seven) assessed against the recalibrated target of 35 percent beyond Part L 2013, but overall these exceeded this challenging target and achieved a 37 percent reduction in regulated CO\\textsubscript{2} emissions beyond Part L 2013 of the Building Regulations.

2.89 The application of the London Plan energy policies in these new developments over 2014 resulted in cumulative regulated CO\\textsubscript{2} emission reductions of 53,423 tonnes per annum.

2.90 Figure 2.3 shows that the largest contribution was due to connection to heat networks and on-site combined heat and power (CHP) plants, which amounted to 27,594 tonnes of CO\\textsubscript{2} per annum - over half of the overall reduction. The first element of the energy hierarchy, energy efficiency (EE), achieved an average reduction of 14 percent. Renewable energy (RE), the final element of the hierarchy, was responsible for the smallest reduction of the three elements – this is likely to be due to the challenge associated with installing on-site renewable energy in a high density, urban environment and the appropriateness of some renewable technologies in tandem with CHP (for example, supply of hot water through solar thermal collectors can reduce the efficiency and carbon savings realised through CHP).

2.91 Significant investment at each stage of the energy hierarchy was secured including £114 million in heat network infrastructure and associated CHP and £16 million in solar PV panels and additional investment in other renewable technologies.

2.92 Major development proposals are required to provide a detailed energy assessment to demonstrate how the targets for CO\\textsubscript{2} emissions reduction outlined above are to be met within the framework of the energy hierarchy. Where it is clearly demonstrated that the specific targets cannot be fully achieved on-site, any shortfall may be provided off-site or through a cash-in-lieu contribution to the relevant borough to be ring fenced to secure delivery of carbon dioxide savings elsewhere.

2.93 The Mayor’s Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Guidance was published in April 2014. This provides the boroughs with further guidance on what to consider when setting up an off-set fund.

### TABLE 2.28 MAYORAL REFERRALS

| STAGE 1 RECEIPT DATE | CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTION TARGET BEYOND BUILDING REGULATIONS PART L | |----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | Prior to 1st October 2013 | 25% beyond Part L 2010 | | 1st October 2013 to 3rd April 2014 | 40% beyond Part L 2010 | | From 4th April 2014 | 25% beyond Part L 2013 |

Source: GLA KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 21

Increase in energy generated from renewable sources.

**Target:** Production of 8550 GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026

2.94 This renewable energy generation target has been developed using data in the Mayor’s Decentralised Energy capacity Studies which marked out the role renewables could play in our future energy mix by 2026. The renewable energy generation figure includes the potential energy production from various electricity and heat supply technologies, including: photovoltaics, wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste; as well as solar thermal, ground and air and water source heat pumps.

2.95 The most authoritative datasets for energy generated in London from renewable energy sources are provided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Table 2.28 shows the generation of electricity from renewables in London for 2011-2014. Generation has increased by an estimated 18.3% to over 680 GWh but is well below the 2026 target and slightly below last year’s figure of 700 GWh. Despite increases in generation of wind and wave as well as photovoltaics in particular, the reduced electricity generation total is due to a decrease of the ‘bioenergy’ component, which is most significant in terms of scale. This has been caused by a combination of reduced generation from the three Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) combustion plants – SELCHP, Edmonton and Belvedere as a whole, and a reduction in the renewable component of MSW from 55% in 2012 to 50% in 2014. In addition, through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) and renewable heat Premium Payments (RHPP) (see https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/rhiand-rhpp-deployment-data-november-2014), the following renewable heat installations have been achieved by November 2014:

- 15.2MW of installed capacity installed through the non-domestic RHI (an increase of over 50% from the previous year);
- 0.9MW of installed capacity from heat pumps and biomass, through the RHPP in domestic dwellings;
- A total of 216 domestic accredited installations from domestic RHI. FIGURE 3 CO₂ EMISSIONS

Source: Energy Planning Monitoring Report 2014 https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/environment-publications/2014-energy-planning-monitoring-report

Note: Regulated emissions are the CO₂ emissions arising from energy used by fixed building services, as defined in Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations. These include fixed systems for lighting, heating, hot water, air conditioning and mechanical ventilation.

### TABLE 2.28 ESTIMATE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INSTALLED CAPACITY AND GENERATION IN LONDON ELECTRICITY: 2011-2014

| YEAR | CAPACITY (MW)/(GWh) | BIO-MASS | WIND AND WAVE | LANDFILL GAS | SEWAGE GAS | BIO-ENERGY | PHOTO-VOLTAICS | TOTAL | |------|---------------------|----------|---------------|--------------|------------|------------|----------------|-------| | 2011 | Total (MW) | 0 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 20.6 | 165.7 | 25.0 | 215.3 | | | Total (GWh) | 0 | 8.0 | 1.7 | 49.9 | 558.7 | 7.0 | 625.3 | | 2012 | Total (MW) | 0 | 4.4 | 0.3 | 23.4 | 167.0 | 42.3 | 237.5 | | | Total (GWh) | 0 | 10.9 | 1.3 | 46 | 679.7 | 34.2 | 772.1 | | 2013 | Total (MW) | 0 | 4.4 | 0.3 | 23.4 | 169.5 | 49.1 | 246.8 | | | Total (GWh) | 0 | 11.5 | 2.3 | 60.2 | 706.3 | 39.7 | 820.1 | | 2014 | Total (MW) | 0 | 11.2 | 0.3 | 23.4 | 172.4 | 60.7 | 268.0 | | | Total (GWh) | 0 | 14.5 | 2.6 | 53.1 | 560.3 | 53.3 | 683.8 |

# Updated July 2014

Source: Regional Statistics 2003-2013: Installed Capacity, Department of Energy and Climate Change, and Regional Statistics 2003-2013: Generation, Department of Energy and Climate Change KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 22

Increase in Urban Greening

Target: Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ

2.96 In 2014 the GLA, working with the Green Roof Consultancy, mapped all known green roofs in the CAZ that were visible on aerial imagery taken in the summer of 2013. A total of 678 green roofs covering an area of over 175,000m² (17.5 ha) were found. The map is published here: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/green-roof-map

2.97 No formal updates are available at this stage but further research is proposed for 2016. The Green roof website linked above still encourages installers and purchasers of green roofs to inform the GLA of any green roofs that may have been missed, or that have been installed since the summer of 2013. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 23

Improve London’s Blue Ribbon Network

**Target:** Restore 15km of rivers and streams\* 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (\*defined as main river by the Environment Agency – includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance)

2.98 Restoration is defined as a measure that results in a significant increase in diversity of hydromorphological features and or improved floodplain connectivity and the restoration of river function through essential physical or biological processes, including flooding, sediment transport and the facilitation of species movement.

2.99 The Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group, co-ordinating the implementation of this aspect of London’s Biodiversity Action Plan and managed by the Environment Agency, recommends that projects have post project appraisals. For the steering group to enable a project to be assessed as restoration, the following assessments can be made.

- River Habitat Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice).
- Urban River Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice).
- Pre and post fixed point photography.

2.100 The time of restoration of a habitat is defined as the point at which the necessary construction works have been carried out on the ground to the extent that the habitat is likely to develop without further construction work. For schemes that are phased over several years, an estimate of the length gained is made for each year ensuring that there is no double counting. In order to verify that habitats have been created and conditions secured, scheme details need to be submitted to the Rivers & Streams HAP Steering Group. Once the outputs have been verified then the scheme can be reported and placed on Biodiversity Action Reporting system.

2.101 Table 2.29 shows consistent restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007, except for the year 2014. Overall, the target of 15 km of river restoration between 2008 (base year as per London Biodiversity Action Plan habitat target) and 2015 has been achieved and exceeded by 742 m. In 2015 alone 2.5 km were restored. With 1 km the Yeading Brook Improvement Project (River Crane Catchment) has made the most significant contribution. It should be noted that there has been a change in the reporting process for river restoration schemes in 2014/15. Project delivery is now reported directly to the River Restoration Centre through the ‘Restore’ database. This makes reporting simpler and improves the access to project details. To improve reporting, a River Restoration Group has also been established that will review and promote the new process.

2.102 There is uncertainty associated with the additional 10 km target. However, significant schemes such as the Ram Brewery in Wandsworth and the Lewisham Gateway will be completed shortly and the All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should facilitate further achievements. It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for maintenance and enhancement reflected in London Plan Policy 7.19 (Table 7.3).

| YEAR | RESTORATION (METRES) | CUMULATIVE RESTORATION (METRES) | CUMULATIVE CHANGE SINCE 2008 BASELINE | |------|----------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | 2000 | 680 | 680 | - | | 2001 | 150 | 830 | - | | 2002 | 600 | 1,430 | - | | 2003 | 2,300 | 3,730 | - | | 2004 | 500 | 4,230 | - | | 2005 | 0 | 4,230 | - | | 2006 | 100 | 4,330 | - | | 2007 | 5,100 | 9,430 | - | | 2008 | 2,000 | 11,430 | 0 | | 2009 | 1,500 | 12,930 | 1,500 | | 2010 | 1,808 | 14,738 | 3,308 | | 2011 | 3,519 | 18,257 | 6,827 | | 2012 | 3,000 | 21,257 | 9,827 | | 2013 | 2,395 | 23,652 | 12,222 | | 2014 | 330 | 23,982 | 12,552 | | 2015 | 2,490 | 27,172 | 15,742 |

Source: Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group and the London Catchment Partnership KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 24

Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm

Target: Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a % of the total number of designated heritage assets in London

2.103 The target includes all designated heritage assets, including World Heritage Sites, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields. Despite the pressures of development, Table 2.30 shows that the number of designated assets in London has increased from last year’s. There are 40 new listed buildings, four new conservation areas and two more scheduled monument in London.

2.104 In terms of designated assets at risk, in the last year there has been a slight decrease of listed buildings at risk (by 0.4%); of scheduled monuments at risk (by 0.3%); of registered parks and gardens at risk (by 1.3%). The situation remains constant for the other two designed assets in terms of both their number and their condition. For details on individual designated assets, please visit http://www.historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/data-downloads/. Historic England also provides a summary document with the number and condition of all designated assets and has produced a Heritage at Risk 2015 summary for London.

| TABLE 2.30 NUMBER AND CONDITION OF DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSETS | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | | World Heritage Sites\* | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | | Listed Buildings# | 18,745 | 2.53 | 18,854 | 2.8 | 18,872 | 2.7 | 18,896 | 3 | 18,936 | 2.59 | | Conservation Areas | 1,000 | 6.4 | 949 | 6.8 | 1,009 | 6.3 | 1,017 | 6.3\*\* | 1,021 | 6%\*\* | | Schedule Monuments | 154 | 22.7 | 154 | 22.7 | 155 | 20.6 | 156 | 19.9 | 158 | 19.6 | | Registered Parks and Gardens | 149 | 5.40 | 150 | 8 | 150 | 7.3 | 150 | 7.3 | 150 | 6 | | Registered Battlefield | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

Source: English Heritage

\*designated by UNESCO. # does not include places of worship.

\*\* 954 of the 1021 Conservation Areas in London have been surveyed through the Conservation Areas at Risk survey and 62, or 6%, are considered at risk. CHAPTER 3 ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STATISTICS INTRODUCTION

3.1 This report provides further detail on housing provision in London, adding to that provided in the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD). The LDD was established by the GLA in 2004 with the support of government and the London Local Authorities and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.

3.2 This section deals with housing provision as defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan. The main focus is on the ‘conventional supply’ of housing, that is the supply of new housing from new build, conversions of existing residential buildings or changes of use. It only includes dwellings that are fully self-contained; meaning they have their own kitchen and bathroom behind their own lockable front door. Other forms of living accommodation, including student halls and homes that do not meet the definition of ‘self-contained’ make up the ‘non-conventional’ supply. These also contribute to the housing targets in Annex 4 of the London Plan, as do vacant properties returning to use. Where these are being referred to, it will be explicitly stated in the text.

3.3 All figures are usually ‘net’ (losses of existing units are subtracted from the gains) unless otherwise stated. The main exceptions are that numbers of bedrooms, residential densities and compliance with accessibility standards are all calculated on gross figures.

3.4 The reporting year used by LDD is the Financial Year (FY) which begins on 1st April and runs to 31st March. FY2014 therefore runs from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2015. To make it clearer we have used the form 2014/15 rather than FY2014 in this report.

3.5 The statistics are based on the details of planning applications approved by the London boroughs. LDD records all Full and Outline permissions that propose a loss or a gain of residential units. Variations to these, whether through details / reserved matters consents, s73 Minor Material Amendments or formal Variations to s106 agreements, are also recorded. Changes of use from office to residential via the prior approval process are also included following their introduction on 30th May 2013. Note that the streamlined prior approvals process means that applicants do not need to submit full details of their proposed scheme so it is not always possible for the local authority to fill in all of the details normally recorded on LDD. These gaps in the data can lead to totals not matching across tables in this report. Other prior approvals, for example from retail to residential, are not currently mandatory for inclusion on LDD so do not contribute to these figures. Temporary permissions are also excluded.

3.6 The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. Completion in relation to this target is triggered by payment of grant funding and is not the same as the definition of completion used on LDD. The Affordable Housing Monitor covers affordable housing delivery according to the London Housing Strategy definition.

3.7 Although some individual schemes are referenced in this report, it is intended to give a brief overview to the London situation. More detailed information at a local level can be found in borough AMRs.

3.8 Although the data in the LDD is supplied by the boroughs, the information presented here may be different from that found in the borough AMRs. This can be due to the timing of when the data is extracted; LDD is a live system that is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way data is recorded, for example the way completions are allocated to particular years. The LDD ensures that the data is collected using the same methodology across London.

KEY STATISTICS AND FINDINGS

a. There were 28,191 net conventional housing completions in London in 2014/15.

b. In addition 4,369 non-self-contained units were completed.

c. The number of long term vacant properties rose by 120 (a net loss of total housing supply) giving a total housing provision of 32,440. This amounts to 101% of the benchmark for completions in the London Plan 2011, although it represents 76.5% of the increased target in the London Plan 2015.

d. New build accounted for 83% of net conventional supply in 2014/15, conversions 4% and changes of use 13%. This is up from 10% in the previous year.

e. Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing completions through planning permissions amounted to 21,529 homes. Social rented units make up 52% of affordable completions over this period, intermediate housing 37% and Affordable Rent nearly 11%, up from 3% reported in AMR 11.

f. Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes. 34% of homes completed during 2014/15 had one bedroom, 42% had two bedrooms and the remaining 24% had three bedrooms or more, up slightly from 22% in 2013/14.

g. Net conventional housing approvals during 2014/15 are 74,930, up from 63,733 in 2013/14

h. 28% of gross affordable housing completions in 2014/15 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms, down from 29% the previous year. i. 13% of net units approved and 18% of net units in schemes started during 2014/15 are affordable housing. j. The conventional housing pipeline in London continues to grow. As of 31 March 2015, the net conventional housing pipeline consisted of 261,643 homes. k. There has been an increase in the proportion of units in schemes that are under construction. 51% of the units in the residential pipeline are in schemes that are under construction. This compares to 46% reported in the previous AMR. l. The average density of new housing approvals in 2014/15 was 160 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of completions was 124 dph.

COMPLETIONS

3.9 Total housing provision as monitored in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non-self-contained bed spaces, and long-term empty homes returning to use, often referred to as ‘Vacants’. KPI 4 in chapter 2 and Table HPM1 show housing provision at borough level compared to the London Plan target.

3.10 Net conventional completions for 2014/15 are 28,191. This is the highest total since the peak of over 29,500 in 2008/09.

3.11 The non-self-contained element of the benchmark is comprised of bedrooms in student halls of residence, hostels and large houses in multiple occupation. The net total of 4,369 is down on last year, but still above the average since LDD began in 2004/05. The combined total of 32,440 is the second highest since recorded on LDD, less than 800 below the 2006/07 peak.

3.12 Care homes are not included as non-conventional supply in this AMR. However, through the 2015 London Plan they become part of the non-conventional supply and will therefore be included in future AMRs.

3.13 The figures for the change in long-term empty homes are taken from statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities. The change is calculated from the number of vacant dwellings as at October each year so does not correspond with the reporting period of 1st April to 31st March for the LDD-sourced data, but it remains the best source of net change available.

3.14 Table 3.1 and Figure 4 show the separate elements of total housing provision for the last seven years. Completions have risen sharply for the second year in a row.

3.15 In 2014/2015 a total of 32,245 conventional homes were completed, with 4,054 lost or replaced to give the net total of 28,191 (see Table HPM1). Areas where large-scale residential redevelopment (usually in former council estates) is taking place can show high gross but low net supply, for example in Barking and Dagenham. This can be the result of the way that LDD records all losses

### TABLE 3.1 NET HOUSING SUPPLY IN LONDON, 2004/05 TO 2013/14

| Year | 2004/5 | 2005/6 | 2006/7 | 2007/8 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | |--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | Conventional | 24,685 | 25,550 | 26,624 | 27,747 | 29,567 | 24,728 | 18,936 | 22,710 | 22,197 | 25,313 | 28,191 | | Non-Conventional | 4,164 | 449 | 2,967 | 1,284 | 2,408 | 1,426 | 1,922 | 1,491 | 2,639 | 4,298 | 4,369 | | Vacants back in use | 2,519 | -61 | 3,608 | 287 | -398 | 2,223 | 4,882 | 5,670 | 2,018 | 1,057 | -120 | | Total | 31,368 | 25,938 | 33,199 | 29,318 | 31,577 | 28,377 | 25,740 | 29,871 | 26,854 | 30,668 | 32,440 |

Source: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database

Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants

### TABLE 3.2 NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING APPROVALS IN LONDON, 2004/05 TO 2014/15

| Year | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | |--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | CAZ | 4,877 | 4,281 | 7,611 | 4,813 | 4,212 | 2,739 | 4,308 | 15,595 | 7,619 | 7,554 | 14,112 | | Inner | 26,709 | 23,647 | 26,722 | 40,705 | 24,295 | 28,400 | 21,590 | 44,463 | 21,747 | 32,300 | 35,776 | | Outer | 23,881 | 25,387 | 23,610 | 35,000 | 19,461 | 15,022 | 31,922 | 26,207 | 11,919 | 23,879 | 25,042 | | London | 55,467 | 53,315 | 57,943 | 80,518 | 47,968 | 46,161 | 57,820 | 86,265 | 41,285 | 63,733 | 74,930 |

Source: The London Development Database

### TABLE 3.3 NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PIPELINE IN LONDON AS AT END OF FINANCIAL YEAR

| Year | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | |--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------| | CAZ | 9,468 | 9,923 | 13,198 | 15,256 | 16,233 | 15,441 | 14,682 | 23,866 | 29,094 | 32,626 | 38,377 | | Inner | 56,792 | 62,842 | 72,568 | 87,779 | 87,510 | 90,792 | 83,745 | 102,841 | 109,015 | 125,389 | 133,866 | | Outer | 43,133 | 52,531 | 57,703 | 70,917 | 70,225 | 66,825 | 79,696 | 86,364 | 81,746 | 85,213 | 89,400 | | London | 109,393 | 125,296 | 143,469 | 173,952 | 173,968 | 173,058 | 178,123 | 213,071 | 219,855 | 243,228 | 261,643 |

Source: The London Development Database.

Totals are as at 31st March each year (2014/15 is therefore as at 31/03/2015)

### TABLE 3.4 GROSS CONVENTIONAL HOUSING COMPLETIONS BY TENURE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2014/15

| DWELLINGS | 1 BED | 2 BEDS | 3 BEDS | 4+ BEDS | TOTAL | |--------------------|-------|--------|--------|---------|--------| | Social Rented | 1,125 | 1,614 | 1,173 | 473 | 4,385 | | Intermediate | 1,102 | 1,285 | 257 | 36 | 2,680 | | Affordable Rent | 429 | 568 | 334 | 90 | 1,421 | | Market | 8,507 | 9,976 | 3,642 | 1,612 | 23,737 | | All Tenure | 11,163| 13,443 | 5,406 | 2,211 | 32,223 |

| AS A % OF TOTAL | 1 BED | 2 BED | 3 BED | 4+ BED | TOTAL | |--------------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|--------| | Social Rented | 26% | 37% | 27% | 11% | 100% | | Intermediate | 41% | 48% | 10% | 1% | 100% | | Affordable Rent | 30% | 40% | 24% | 6% | 100% | | Market | 36% | 42% | 15% | 7% | 100% | | All Tenure | 35% | 42% | 17% | 7% | 100% |

Source: London Development Database

### FIGURE 4 TOTAL HOUSING PROVISION BY YEAR

Sources: Conventional and non-conventional supply - London Development Database

Vacants back in use - GOV.UK Housing Live Table 615; https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-dwelling-stock-including-vacants in the same year, while gains can be spread over several years. In this case the completions include the redevelopment of the Goresbrook Estate which includes a net loss of 133 units (12/00854/FUL), but was considered as part of the wider redevelopment of estates in the borough which overall will see a net loss of just 16 units.

3.16 There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD; new build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example gains from industrial or commercial uses and losses to non-C3 uses). Table HPM2 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build provides the most units, however the 83% recorded in 2014/15 represents the second decrease in a row, down from 87% in 2012/13. Conversions make up 4% of net supply and changes of use now make up 14%. This is an increase on the 10% recorded in the previous AMR.

3.17 The increase in the importance of changes of use in part reflects the impact of the office to residential prior approvals on the completions figures. Without these consents, the proportion of completions from change of use is just under 10%, up less than half a percentage on the previous year. While new builds provide the most units in the majority of boroughs, this is not the case in all boroughs. New build units represent just 18% of completions in Richmond upon Thames, where office to residential prior approvals make up 43% of completions. Changes of use made up 89% of their 293 net completions as conversions resulted in a net loss. The City of London and Westminster saw 66% and 57% of their net completions provided by changes of use even though the City is entirely exempt from office to residential prior approvals and they provided less than 1% of the completions in Westminster. This shows that changes of use are still being made through regular planning permissions as well as the new prior approvals. It is worth noting that in the previous AMR, no borough had less than 50% of its completions from new build.

3.18 Residential conversions contributed 14% of completions in Haringey, the next highest being 13% in Islington, followed by Enfield (12%), Hammersmith & Fulham (11%) and Harrow (10%). Conversions can also lead to a net loss of units as buildings are de-converted from flats back to houses or a smaller number of flats. During 2014/15 three boroughs saw net decreases through conversion; Kensington and Chelsea lost 50 units, Westminster lost 30 units and Richmond upon Thames lost 19. It is worth noting that it is not clear that definition of development in the legislation that governs planning includes the de-conversion of flats to a smaller number of units. They are sometimes granted as certificates of proposed lawful development rather than as full planning permissions. It is expected that these will be included in the next AMR to increase the accuracy of our net housing figures, although it is possible that some de-conversions happen entirely outside the planning system. 3.19 The average density of new housing completions in London (shown in Table HPM14) was 124 dwellings per hectare (dph), a slight increase on the 122dph for the previous two years (note that changes and corrections to the database have resulted in these figures being revised since the last AMR). As would be expected the lowest densities are found in the outer London boroughs. The density of completions in Bromley was 44dph, in Merton it was 45dph and in Havering 49dph. As in each of the recent years, The City of London delivered housing at the highest density, this year at 478dph. Tower Hamlets and Newham delivered at the next highest densities, 350 and 281dph respectively. Densities are calculated by dividing the gross total residential units by the sum of the residential site areas. The Mayor has initiated a review of the way in which densities are calculated to inform the next London Plan which may lead to changes in the way that densities are calculated in future.

3.20 Table 3.4 shows the split of total gross conventional completions in 2014/15 across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms. The figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms has only recently started to be recorded on LDD for homes lost or replaced, however boroughs are now recording it on a voluntary basis so net data may become available in future AMRs. One and two-bed properties make up the majority of supply, accounting for 35% and 42% of the total respectively. However the profile of supply varies with tenure. Homes with 3 bedrooms or more make up 38% of social rented supply, 30% of Affordable Rent homes, 22% of market homes and 11% of intermediate homes. The proportion across all tenures is 24%. This is up on the 22% reported in AMR11.

3.21 Table HMP6 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing by borough and number of bedrooms. The highest percentage of affordable housing with 3 or more bedrooms is in Redbridge where 9 of 17 units are affordable (53%), but more significant are the 267 units of 3 or more bedrooms that make up 51% of the supply in Hackney.

3.22 Total net affordable housing supply in 2014/15 was 6,985, slightly up from 6,934 in 2013/14 (revised from the figure of 6,592 published in AMR 11). Affordable units represent 25% of all net completions during this year, this is down on the previous year’s figure of 27% due to the higher completions total. The three year average is down to 28%. Table HPM4 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in numeric terms and as a proportion of total supply. In the last year the borough with the highest proportions of affordable housing supply was Haringey at 64%. The next highest is Brent at 44%. Haringey also has the highest three year average at 54%. Bromley recorded a net loss of affordable housing in 2014/15 because of a substantial loss on the redevelopment of the Alkham Tower (10/03698/FULL1). A review of large estate redevelopments has also resulted in Bromley showing a loss for 2012/13 because of the completion of phase 3 of the Ramsden Estate redevelopment (09/02931/FULL1). It is thought that another phase is still to be delivered on this site. 3.23 Table HPM3 breaks down net conventional affordable supply in the last three years into social rented, intermediate and Affordable Rent. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 21,529 homes, with social rented units accounting for 51% of these, intermediate products 38% and Affordable Rent units 11%.

APPROVALS

3.24 Annual approvals include all units in planning permissions that are granted during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions granted will be renewals of existing permissions, revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions. For this reason approvals cannot simply be added together to give a cumulative total, however they are comparable year on year. Table 3.3 shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2004/05, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2014/15 approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by bedrooms.

3.25 Approvals have again risen sharply since the low level recorded in 2012/13 which followed the introduction of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) at the end of 2011/12. The total of 74,930 has only been bettered in 2007/08 at the height of the last economic cycle, and in 2011/12, the pre-CIL rush. The borough to approve the highest number of units is Tower Hamlets. Their approvals include the submission of a revised scheme for Wood Wharf (PA/13/02966) which could potentially deliver up to 3,600 units, along with new consents such as South Quay Plaza (PA/14/00944, 888 units) and 151 East Ferry Road (PA/11/03670, 850 units). After Wood Wharf, the next biggest scheme in terms of net units is the resubmission of the New Covent Garden Market in Wandsworth (2014/2810, 2,971 units). The largest new scheme is for 1,150 units on the Dairy Crest site in Hammersmith & Fulham. This is an outline application and details of proposed units are not known at this time. Note that approvals for 2013/14 have been revised upwards to 63,733 largely due to the addition of some major missing permissions in Greenwich and Tower Hamlets (amounting to over 5,300 units between them), although corrections in excess of 400 units have also been made to the figures for Islington, Barnet, Brent and Westminster.

3.26 In terms of tenure, 87% of approved in 2014/15 units are for market sale or rent, leaving 13% as affordable units, broken down as 7% intermediate, 4% Affordable Rent and 2% social rented. It should be noted that the outline status of many of the larger permissions means that the tenure of the units may not have been defined so the number of affordable units may increase as details of the later phases are submitted. The tenure of approved units can also change at any time before completion, for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities or by subsequent transfer of units to a housing association.

3.27 The average density of new housing approvals shown in Table HPM 13 is 159 dph, an increase on last year’s 147dph (revised upwards from 137dph as stated in AMR 11). This is still lower than the figure of over 163dph for 2011/12. As ever there is wide variation between boroughs. The highest densities are in Tower Hamlets (461 dph) and Islington (405dph). Revisions to the data for 2013/14 mean that Tower Hamlets has approved permissions at the highest average density for three of the past four years. The lowest density is again in Bromley. The 39dph figure is higher than their figure of 30dph in 2013/14.

3.28 Excluding the office to residential prior approvals, the density of approvals across London is slightly lower at 151dph.

STARTS

3.29 In the LDD a ‘start’ is the point at which a planning permission can no longer lapse due to the acknowledgement of a legal start on site. This can be triggered by demolition of existing buildings or preparatory digging, and does not mean the start of physical construction work on an individual building. Annual starts include all units in planning permissions that are started during the year unless they are superseded by a revision to the scheme within the same year. Many of the permissions started will be for revisions to previously approved schemes or provide details of the phasing of outline permissions that have been started in previous years. As with approvals, starts can’t simply be added together to give a cumulative total. They are however comparable year on year.

3.30 Table HPM9 shows net conventional housing ‘starts’ by tenure. LDD records 42,736 starts, below the revised figure for 2013/14 of 50,954 but still a big increase on the 29,637 in 2012/13. It is important to note that boroughs are still reporting difficulties in identifying starts on site and that some starts only get picked up when work is well underway, or occasionally only on scheme completion (particularly in the case of conversions or changes of use where there may be little or no external evidence of the work). This means that the figure for 2014/15 may be revised upwards by the time of AMR 13.

3.31 In terms of tenure, 18% of net starts in 2014/15 were affordable housing. Social rented units account for 34% of net affordable starts, intermediate units 44% and Affordable Rent 22%. In gross terms social rented units account for 44% of affordable starts, reflecting the ongoing process of estate redevelopment and improvement.

3.32 As in previous years the majority of the units recorded as starts contain 1 and 2 bedrooms, with properties of 3 bedrooms or more making up 20% of starts (see HPM10).

THE PIPELINE OF NEW HOMES

3.33 The ‘pipeline’ of housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but are not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes that are ‘not started’ and those that are ‘under construction’. It is important to bear in mind the definition of a start above. The under construction pipeline shows the capacity in schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes. The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline, while units are removed when they are either completed, superseded by a new scheme or pass their lapse date without a start being made.

3.34 Table 3.4 shows the net pipeline as at the end of each financial year (31st March) at London level since 2004/05. The number of units in the pipeline continues to rise, now topping 260,000 units, meaning there is capacity within the planning system to deliver over 8 years of supply at the target level in the London Plan 2011, and six years at the new 42,000 target in the 2015 London Plan.

3.35 Table HPM11 shows the planning pipeline for conventional residential units as of 31 March 2015. At the end of the year there were 128,171 units (net) in schemes which have been granted planning permission but on which construction had not started and 133,472 units (net) in schemes under construction. The boroughs with the largest pipeline remain those in the East, long viewed as the part of London with the most potential to accommodate growth. Tower Hamlets now has the largest net pipeline at 33,648 units. Greenwich has a net pipeline of nearly 27,745 units and Newham’s pipeline stands at 21,516. Further West, Wandsworth has a total net pipeline of 19,861 units. At the other end of the scale, the City of London have a total pipeline of 929 units, while Kingston upon Thames (1,419) and Merton (1,447) also have a net pipeline of under 1,500 units.

3.36 HPM 12 shows the gross conventional pipeline by number of bedrooms. 22% of units for which the information is available will provide 3 bedrooms or more, the same as last year.

GYPSY AND TRAVELLER SITES

3.37 A total of 5 traveller pitches were granted permission during 2014/15; 1 at Lonesome Depot in Lambeth (14/05864/RG3) and 4 at Grove Place in Sutton (C2014/70617). The 4 pitches in Sutton were also started during this year. There are no other sites from previous years in the pipeline. | BOROUGH | LOSSES | GAINS | NET | LONDON PLAN FALP BENCHMARK | SUPPLY AS % OF BENCHMARK | |-------------------------------|--------|--------|-------|----------------------------|--------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 538 | 1,050 | 512 | 1,041 | 49% | | Barnet | 68 | 1,395 | 1,327 | 2,048 | 65% | | Bexley | 16 | 827 | 811 | 337 | 241% | | Brent | 136 | 1,741 | 1,605 | 975 | 165% | | Bromley | 167 | 574 | 407 | 501 | 81% | | Camden | 96 | 555 | 459 | 500 | 92% | | City of London | 5 | 231 | 226 | 81 | 279% | | Croydon | 106 | 1,626 | 1,520 | 1,221 | 124% | | Ealing | 237 | 1,120 | 883 | 843 | 105% | | Enfield | 54 | 455 | 401 | 530 | 76% | | Greenwich | 26 | 1,172 | 1,146 | 2,429 | 47% | | Hackney | 63 | 1,675 | 1,612 | 1,124 | 143% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 166 | 981 | 815 | 564 | 145% | | Haringey | 121 | 750 | 629 | 792 | 79% | | Harrow | 43 | 453 | 410 | 349 | 117% | | Havering | 10 | 652 | 642 | 972 | 66% | | Hillingdon | 29 | 956 | 927 | 375 | 247% | | Hounslow | 87 | 984 | 897 | 453 | 198% | | Islington | 74 | 935 | 861 | 922 | 93% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 277 | 1,259 | 982 | 530 | 185% | | Kingston upon Thames | 26 | 552 | 526 | 329 | 160% | | Lambeth | 196 | 1,602 | 1,406 | 1,142 | 123% | | Lewisham | 98 | 1,538 | 1,440 | 1,088 | 132% | | Merton | 176 | 597 | 421 | 318 | 132% | | Newham | 139 | 2,067 | 1,928 | 2,499 | 77% | | Redbridge | 18 | 275 | 257 | 748 | 34% | | Richmond upon Thames | 91 | 384 | 293 | 210 | 140% | | Southwark | 398 | 1,539 | 1,141 | 1,877 | 61% | | Sutton | 45 | 472 | 427 | 211 | 202% | | Tower Hamlets | 15 | 945 | 930 | 2,462 | 38% | | Waltham Forest | 53 | 725 | 672 | 688 | 98% | | Wandsworth | 149 | 1,090 | 941 | 1,081 | 87% | | Westminster | 331 | 1,068 | 737 | 594 | 124% | | London | 4,054 | 32,245 | 28,191| 29,834 | 94% |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NEW BUILD | CONVERSION | CHANGE OF USE | TOTAL | |-----------------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-------| | | LOST | GAINED | NET | LOST | | | | | | GAINED| | | | | | NET | | Barking and Dagenham | 531 | 970 | 439 | 7 | | | 16 | 9 | 0 | 64 | | | 64 | 64 | 538 | 1,050 | | | 512 | | | | | Barnet | 46 | 1,300 | 1,254 | 21 | | | 51 | 30 | 1 | 44 | | | 43 | 68 | 1,395 | 1,327 | | Bexley | 1 | 758 | 757 | 13 | | | 30 | 17 | 2 | 39 | | | 37 | 16 | 827 | 811 | | Brent | 77 | 1,602 | 1,525 | 57 | | | 60 | 3 | 2 | 79 | | | 77 | 136 | 1,741 | 1,605 | | Bromley | 138 | 419 | 281 | 26 | | | 61 | 35 | 3 | 94 | | | 91 | 167 | 574 | 407 | | Camden | 33 | 319 | 286 | 60 | | | 74 | 14 | 3 | 162 | | | 159 | 96 | 555 | 459 | | City of London | 0 | 75 | 75 | 1 | | | 2 | 1 | 4 | 154 | | | 150 | 5 | 231 | 226 | | Croydon | 26 | 1,133 | 1,107 | 61 | | | 184 | 123 | 19 | 309 | | | 290 | 106 | 1,626 | 1,520 | | Ealing | 153 | 819 | 666 | 79 | | | 162 | 83 | 5 | 139 | | | 134 | 237 | 1,120 | 883 | | Enfield | 11 | 245 | 234 | 41 | | | 88 | 47 | 2 | 122 | | | 120 | 54 | 455 | 401 | | Greenwich | 11 | 1,122 | 1,111 | 14 | | | 28 | 14 | 1 | 22 | | | 21 | 26 | 1,172 | 1,146 | | Hackney | 12 | 1,532 | 1,520 | 51 | | | 82 | 31 | 0 | 61 | | | 61 | 63 | 1,675 | 1,612 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 5 | 527 | 522 | 151 | | | 243 | 92 | 10 | 211 | | | 201 | 166 | 981 | 815 | | Haringey | 34 | 495 | 461 | 83 | | | 174 | 91 | 4 | 81 | | | 77 | 121 | 750 | 629 | | Harrow | 9 | 295 | 286 | 34 | | | 75 | 41 | 0 | 83 | | | 83 | 43 | 453 | 410 | | Havering | 8 | 609 | 601 | 2 | | | 8 | 6 | 0 | 35 | | | 35 | 10 | 652 | 642 | | Hillingdon | 24 | 906 | 882 | 4 | | | 17 | 13 | 1 | 33 | | | 32 | 29 | 956 | 927 | | Hounslow | 73 | 948 | 875 | 10 | | | 18 | 8 | 4 | 18 | | | 14 | 87 | 984 | 897 | | Islington | 2 | 475 | 473 | 70 | | | 180 | 110 | 2 | 280 | | | 278 | 74 | 935 | 861 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 43 | 1,005 | 962 | 215 | | | -50 | 19 | 89 | 70 | | | 277 | 1,259 | 982 | | | Kingston upon Thames | 16 | 395 | 379 | 7 | | | 13 | 6 | 3 | 144 | | | 141 | 26 | 552 | 526 | | Lambeth | 50 | 1,103 | 1,053 | 140 | | | 254 | 114 | 6 | 245 | | | 239 | 196 | 1,602 | 1,406 | | Lewisham | 41 | 1,359 | 1,318 | 55 | | | 125 | 70 | 2 | 54 | | | 52 | 98 | 1,538 | 1,440 | | Merton | 138 | 485 | 347 | 33 | | | 51 | 18 | 5 | 61 | | | 56 | 176 | 597 | 421 | | Newham | 11 | 1,832 | 1,821 | 121 | | | 188 | 67 | 7 | 47 | | | 40 | 139 | 2,066 | 1,928 | | Redbridge | 2 | 229 | 227 | 16 | | | 29 | 13 | 0 | 17 | | | 17 | 18 | 275 | 257 | | BOROUGH | NEW BUILD | CONVERSION | CHANGE OF USE | TOTAL | |-------------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|-------| | | LOST | GAINED | LOST | GAINED | LOST | GAINED | LOST | GAINED | NET | LOST | GAINED | NET | | Richmond upon Thames | 12 | 64 | 52 | 73 | 54 | -19 | 6 | 266 | 260 | 91 | 384 | 293 | | Southwark | 351 | 1,278 | 927 | 44 | 83 | 39 | 3 | 178 | 175 | 398 | 1,539 | 1,141| | Sutton | 10 | 307 | 297 | 26 | 46 | 20 | 9 | 119 | 110 | 45 | 472 | 427 | | Tower Hamlets | 15 | 936 | 921 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 15 | 945 | 930 | | Waltham Forest | 5 | 564 | 559 | 43 | 74 | 31 | 5 | 87 | 82 | 53 | 725 | 672 | | Wandsworth | 51 | 812 | 761 | 89 | 133 | 44 | 9 | 145 | 136 | 149 | 1,090 | 941 | | Westminster | 96 | 441 | 345 | 192 | 162 | -30 | 43 | 465 | 422 | 331 | 1,068 | 737 | | London | 2,035 | 25,359 | 23,324 | 1,839 | 2,931| 1,092 | 180 | 3,954 | 3,774| 4,054| 32,244 | 28,191|

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH NAME | 2012/13 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | 2013/14 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | 2014/15 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | Total | |------------------------------|---------------------|------|-----------|---------------------|------|-----------|---------------------|------|-----------|-------| | Barking and Dagenham | 167 | 76 | 0 | 370 | 17 | 201 | -101 | 115 | 0 | 845 | | Barnet | 285 | 123 | 0 | 223 | 55 | 42 | 245 | 63 | 60 | 1,096 | | Bexley | 18 | 12 | 0 | 99 | 47 | 20 | 44 | 78 | 48 | 366 | | Brent | 174 | 50 | 0 | 151 | 92 | 0 | 294 | 274 | 138 | 1,173 | | Bromley | -82 | 14 | 0 | 110 | 30 | 0 | -92 | 23 | 15 | 18 | | Camden | 194 | 105 | 0 | 159 | 29 | 13 | 34 | 27 | 0 | 561 | | City | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | | Croydon | 255 | 98 | 62 | 57 | 59 | 60 | 296 | 91 | 251 | 1,229 | | Ealing | 194 | 132 | 0 | 63 | 115 | 7 | 85 | -36 | 10 | 570 | | Enfield | 106 | 137 | 0 | 123 | 41 | 0 | 34 | 35 | 16 | 492 | | Greenwich | 74 | 13 | 0 | 450 | 217 | 12 | 195 | 88 | 3 | 1,052 | | Hackney | 379 | 184 | 13 | 405 | 169 | 0 | 350 | 137 | 11 | 1,648 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 5 | 102 | 0 | -11 | 107 | 0 | 1 | 171 | 0 | 375 | | Haringey | 204 | 148 | 0 | 68 | 82 | 0 | 49 | 217 | 139 | 907 | | Harrow | 187 | 95 | 28 | 10 | 23 | 0 | 41 | 55 | 0 | 439 | | Havering | 95 | 32 | 0 | 120 | 50 | 67 | 8 | 21 | 247 | 640 | | Hillingdon | 277 | 129 | 0 | 59 | 34 | 0 | 51 | 27 | 0 | 577 | | Hounslow | 28 | 21 | 0 | 20 | 60 | 0 | 96 | 103 | 80 | 408 | | Islington | 137 | 178 | 0 | 117 | 241 | 0 | 196 | 24 | 0 | 893 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 0 | 0 | 4 | 143 | 21 | 0 | 135 | 61 | 0 | 364 | | Kingston upon Thames | 29 | 9 | 0 | 48 | 23 | 13 | 37 | 16 | 6 | 181 | | Lambeth | 174 | 95 | 0 | 236 | 97 | 13 | 150 | 142 | 66 | 973 | | Lewisham | 228 | 265 | 70 | 103 | 52 | 0 | 241 | 164 | 13 | 1,136 | | Merton | 98 | 98 | 0 | 50 | 74 | 14 | 37 | 31 | 26 | 428 | | Newham | 64 | 160 | 81 | 334 | 169 | 0 | 320 | 192 | 56 | 1,376 | | Redbridge | 44 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 70 | | BOROUGH NAME | 2012/13 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | 2013/14 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | 2014/15 SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | Total | |-----------------------|---------------------|------|-----------|---------------------|------|-----------|---------------------|------|-----------|-------| | Richmond upon Thames | 118 | 49 | 0 | 81 | 28 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 281 | | Southwark | 326 | 162 | 0 | 259 | 160 | 34 | -134 | 146 | 57 | 1,010 | | Sutton | 70 | 33 | 0 | 17 | 5 | 27 | 88 | 25 | 8 | 273 | | Tower Hamlets | 172 | 102 | 0 | 107 | 43 | 0 | 174 | 77 | 0 | 675 | | Waltham Forest | 125 | 144 | 0 | -234 | 147 | 90 | 24 | 110 | 147 | 553 | | Wandsworth | 199 | 109 | 0 | 49 | 175 | 0 | 65 | 56 | 23 | 676 | | Westminster | 97 | 28 | 0 | 9 | 38 | 0 | 25 | 23 | 0 | 220 | | London | 4,441 | 2,911| 258 | 3,820 | 2,501| 613 | 3,000 | 2,564| 1,421 | 21,529|

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | TOTAL NET CONVENTIONAL AFFORDABLE COMPLETIONS | AFFORDABLE AS % OF NET CONVENTIONAL SUPPLY | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------| | | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | | Barking and Dagenham | 243 | 588 | 14 | 48% | 68% | 3% | | Barnet | 408 | 320 | 368 | 29% | 26% | 28% | | Bexley | 30 | 166 | 170 | 7% | 31% | 21% | | Brent | 224 | 243 | 706 | 34% | 35% | 44% | | Bromley | -68 | 140 | -54 | -13% | 21% | -13% | | Camden | 299 | 201 | 61 | 53% | 40% | 13% | | City of London | 0 | 24 | 0 | 0% | 6% | 0% | | Croydon | 415 | 176 | 638 | 46% | 14% | 42% | | Ealing | 326 | 185 | 59 | 32% | 25% | 7% | | Enfield | 243 | 164 | 85 | 44% | 32% | 21% | | Greenwich | 87 | 679 | 286 | 27% | 51% | 25% | | Hackney | 576 | 574 | 498 | 46% | 47% | 31% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 107 | 96 | 172 | 24% | 15% | 21% | | Haringey | 352 | 150 | 405 | 58% | 33% | 64% | | Harrow | 310 | 33 | 96 | 44% | 11% | 23% | | Havering | 127 | 237 | 276 | 45% | 34% | 43% | | Hillingdon | 406 | 93 | 78 | 26% | 15% | 8% | | Hounslow | 49 | 80 | 279 | 21% | 9% | 31% | | Islington | 315 | 358 | 220 | 30% | 29% | 26% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 4 | 164 | 196 | 7% | 70% | 20% | | Kingston upon Thames | 38 | 84 | 59 | 18% | 32% | 11% | | Lambeth | 269 | 346 | 358 | 42% | 30% | 25% | | Lewisham | 563 | 155 | 418 | 33% | 22% | 29% | | Merton | 196 | 138 | 94 | 43% | 31% | 22% | | Newham | 305 | 503 | 568 | 30% | 25% | 29% | | Redbridge | 52 | 2 | 16 | 20% | 1% | 6% | | Richmond upon Thames | 167 | 109 | 5 | 34% | 29% | 2% | | Southwark | 488 | 453 | 69 | 46% | 27% | 6% | | Sutton | 103 | 49 | 121 | 44% | 13% | 28% | | Tower Hamlets | 274 | 150 | 251 | 26% | 17% | 27% | | Waltham Forest | 269 | 3 | 281 | 59% | 1% | 42% | | Wandsworth | 308 | 224 | 144 | 34% | 19% | 15% | | Westminster | 125 | 47 | 48 | 22% | 9% | 7% | | London | 7,610 | 6,934 | 6,985 | 34% | 27% | 25% |

Source: London Development Database

### TABLE HPM 5: GROSS CONVENTIONAL HOUSING COMPLETIONS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS 2014/15

| BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |--------------------------------|--------------------|---|---|---|----|------| | Barking and Dagenham | | 349| 388| 270| 43 | 30% | | Barnet | | 305| 771| 244| 75 | 23% | | Bexley | | 227| 496| 63 | 41 | 13% | | Brent | | 663| 754| 269| 55 | 19% | | Bromley | | 131| 264| 98 | 81 | 31% | | Camden | | 187| 223| 91 | 54 | 26% | | City of London | | 136| 87 | 7 | 1 | 3% | | Croydon | | 751| 665| 123| 87 | 13% | | Ealing | | 385| 506| 149| 80 | 20% | | Enfield | | 173| 171| 78 | 28 | 24% | | Greenwich | | 296| 552| 260| 64 | 28% | | Hackney | | 596| 543| 429| 107| 32% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | | 452| 340| 141| 48 | 19% | | Haringey | | 313| 293| 106| 38 | 19% | | Harrow | | 161| 202| 60 | 30 | 20% | | Havering | | 104| 276| 183| 80 | 41% | | Hillingdon | | 329| 162| 138| 327| 49% | | Hounslow | | 256| 438| 251| 39 | 29% | | Islington | | 439| 348| 102| 38 | 15% | | Kensington and Chelsea | | 384| 532| 240| 103| 27% | | Kingston upon Thames | | 254| 185| 81 | 32 | 20% | | Lambeth | | 570| 791| 172| 69 | 15% | | Lewisham | | 560| 605| 328| 45 | 24% | | Merton | | 209| 195| 81 | 112| 32% | | Newham | | 525| 935| 478| 129| 29% | | Redbridge | | 117| 68 | 50 | 40 | 33% | | Richmond upon Thames | | 177| 151| 18 | 38 | 15% | | Southwark | | 479| 782| 202| 76 | 18% | | Sutton | | 286| 129| 35 | 22 | 12% | | Tower Hamlets | | 398| 353| 158| 36 | 21% | | Waltham Forest | | 237| 369| 101| 18 | 16% | | Wandsworth | | 404| 497| 100| 89 | 17% | | Westminster | | 310| 372| 300| 86 | 36% | | London | | 11,163| 13,443| 5,406| 2,211| 24% |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |-------------------------------|--------------------|---|---|---|----|------| | Barking and Dagenham | | 178| 170| 157| 33 | 35% | | Barnet | | 116| 179| 67 | 6 | 20% | | Bexley | | 39 | 98 | 27 | 6 | 19% | | Brent | | 230| 322| 184| 36 | 28% | | Bromley | | 3 | 27 | 15 | 5 | 40% | | Camden | | 26 | 30 | 15 | 10 | 31% | | City of London | | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | Croydon | | 283| 243| 69 | 48 | 18% | | Ealing | | 56 | 109| 20 | 15 | 18% | | Enfield | | 23 | 34 | 19 | 9 | 33% | | Greenwich | | 105| 127| 54 | 0 | 19% | | Hackney | | 113| 146| 192| 75 | 51% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | | 117| 35 | 20 | 0 | 12% | | Haringey | | 119| 203| 66 | 18 | 21% | | Harrow | | 31 | 48 | 9 | 8 | 18% | | Havering | | 49 | 124| 66 | 37 | 37% | | Hillingdon | | 10 | 32 | 20 | 16 | 46% | | Hounslow | | 85 | 122| 122| 14 | 40% | | Islington | | 62 | 86 | 55 | 18 | 33% | | Kensington and Chelsea | | 38 | 94 | 37 | 28 | 33% | | Kingston upon Thames | | 23 | 25 | 9 | 2 | 19% | | Lambeth | | 126| 174| 79 | 11 | 23% | | Lewisham | | 126| 216| 75 | 33 | 24% | | Merton | | 83 | 78 | 18 | 1 | 11% | | Newham | | 180| 277| 107| 69 | 28% | | Redbridge | | 2 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 53% | | Richmond upon Thames | | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 13% | | Southwark | | 77 | 153| 94 | 32 | 35% | | Sutton | | 88 | 25 | 12 | 9 | 16% | | Tower Hamlets | | 78 | 83 | 68 | 34 | 39% | | Waltham Forest | | 79 | 133| 59 | 14 | 26% | | Wandsworth | | 80 | 46 | 12 | 6 | 13% | | Westminster | | 22 | 18 | 12 | 0 | 23% | | London | | 2,656| 3,467| 1,764| 599| 28% |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | PROPOSED MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | NET MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | NET % AFF. | |------------------------------|-----------------|-------------|------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------|-----------|------------|-------------|------|-----------|------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 382 | 989 | 0 | 0 | 999 | 38 | 539 | 500 | 617 | -951 | 539 | 500 | 12% | | Barnet | 177 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,084 | 32 | 9 | 0 | 1,907 | 32 | 9 | 0 | 2% | | Bexley | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 406 | 3 | 9 | 42 | 371 | 3 | 9 | 42 | 13% | | Brent | 165 | 193 | 0 | 0 | 1,271 | 145 | 48 | 58 | 1,106 | -48 | 48 | 58 | 5% | | Bromley | 102 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,183 | 24 | 20 | 85 | 1,081 | 24 | 20 | 85 | 11% | | Camden | 255 | 322 | 2 | 0 | 2,720 | 547 | 204 | 53 | 2,465 | 225 | 202 | 53 | 16% | | City of London | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 190 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 163 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 14% | | Croydon | 123 | 51 | 0 | 1 | 3,979 | 85 | 159 | 139 | 3,856 | 34 | 159 | 138 | 8% | | Ealing | 231 | 204 | 0 | 0 | 1,840 | 277 | 295 | 14 | 1,609 | 73 | 295 | 14 | 19% | | Enfield | 93 | 110 | 0 | 6 | 800 | 59 | 33 | 11 | 707 | -51 | 33 | 5 | -2% | | Greenwich | 77 | 417 | 0 | 0 | 3,445 | 791 | 191 | 18 | 3,368 | 374 | 191 | 18 | 15% | | Hackney | 181 | 1,475 | 269 | 0 | 3,681 | 736 | 802 | 43 | 3,500 | -739 | 533 | 43 | -5% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 251 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 4,705 | 111 | 316 | 69 | 4,454 | 100 | 315 | 69 | 10% | | Haringey | 168 | 42 | 0 | 0 | 1,119 | 220 | 116 | 35 | 951 | 178 | 116 | 35 | 26% | | Harrow | 75 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 1,139 | 0 | 56 | 0 | 1,064 | -40 | 56 | 0 | 1% | | Havering | 29 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 972 | 44 | 41 | 2 | 943 | -4 | 41 | 2 | 4% | | Hillingdon | 60 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,274 | 105 | 27 | 0 | 1,214 | 105 | 27 | 0 | 10% | | Hounslow | 53 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 1,958 | 150 | 66 | 44 | 1,905 | 125 | 66 | 44 | 11% | | Islington | 95 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 1,857 | 219 | 239 | 144 | 1,762 | 200 | 239 | 144 | 25% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 282 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,302 | 275 | 11 | 0 | 1,020 | 275 | 11 | 0 | 22% | | Kingston upon Thames | 64 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,002 | 16 | 50 | 2 | 938 | 16 | 50 | 2 | 7% | | Lambeth | 146 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 4,375 | 323 | 324 | 267 | 4,229 | 282 | 324 | 267 | 17% | | Lewisham | 82 | 0 | 0 | 46 | 1,622 | 106 | 54 | 229 | 1,540 | 106 | 54 | 183 | 18% | | Merton | 89 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 601 | 5 | 46 | 0 | 512 | -36 | 46 | 0 | 2% | | Newham | 70 | 32 | 33 | 0 | 1,971 | 20 | 213 | 177 | 1,901 | -12 | 180 | 177 | 15% | | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | PROPOSED MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | NET MARKET | SOCIAL RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | NET % AFF. | |--------------|-----------------|-------------|------|-----------|-----------------|-------------|------|-----------|------------|-------------|------|-----------|------------| | Redbridge | 37 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 848 | 74 | 21 | 30 | 811 | 70 | 21 | 30 | 13% | | Richmond upon Thames | 140 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,036 | 65 | 1 | 0 | 896 | 65 | 1 | 0 | 7% | | Southwark | 122 | 242 | 1 | 0 | 2,654 | 388 | 337 | 124 | 2,532 | 146 | 336 | 124 | 19% | | Sutton | 65 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1,293 | 52 | 2 | 12 | 1,228 | 48 | 2 | 12 | 5% | | Tower Hamlets| 80 | 80 | 0 | 17 | 8,325 | 822 | 562 | 605 | 8,245 | 742 | 562 | 588 | 19% | | Waltham Forest| 84 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 843 | 0 | 113 | 78 | 759 | 0 | 113 | 78 | 20% | | Wandsworth | 250 | 12 | 39 | 0 | 4,805 | 397 | 397 | 0 | 4,555 | 385 | 358 | 0 | 14% | | Westminster | 512 | 61 | 0 | 0 | 2,768 | 145 | 170 | 37 | 2,256 | 84 | 170 | 37 | 11% | | London | 4,602 | 4,463 | 345 | 70 | 69067 | 6274 | 5471 | 2845 | 64465 | 1811 | 5126 | 2775 | 13% |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |-------------------------------|--------------------|----|----|----|----|------| | Barking and Dagenham | | 583| 808| 443| 242| 33% | | Barnet | | 851| 824| 339| 94 | 20% | | Bexley | | 184| 159| 51 | 66 | 25% | | Brent | | 682| 545| 207| 71 | 18% | | Bromley | | 479| 509| 128| 196| 25% | | Camden | | 1,432| 1,438| 517| 137| 19% | | City of London | | 131| 67 | 16 | 3 | 9% | | Croydon | | 2,453| 1,304| 479| 356| 18% | | Ealing | | 952| 951| 405| 118| 22% | | Enfield | | 427| 286| 132| 58 | 21% | | Greenwich | | 1,596| 1,899| 833| 117| 21% | | Hackney | | 2,096| 1,980| 962| 223| 23% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | | 2,806| 1,761| 549| 83 | 12% | | Haringey | | 681| 623| 146| 45 | 13% | | Harrow | | 689| 414| 73 | 19 | 8% | | Havering | | 255| 381| 332| 91 | 40% | | Hillingdon | | 619| 425| 107| 41 | 11% | | Hounslow | | 1,061| 750| 335| 72 | 18% | | Islington | | 1,162| 901| 285| 82 | 15% | | Kensington and Chelsea | | 541| 443| 388| 216| 38% | | Kingston upon Thames | | 479| 431| 71 | 89 | 15% | | Lambeth | | 2,233| 2,226| 669| 161| 16% | | Lewisham | | 1,075| 668| 207| 61 | 13% | | Merton | | 350| 179| 52 | 47 | 15% | | Newham | | 842| 1,471| 186| 16 | 8% | | Redbridge | | 396| 349| 137| 91 | 23% | | Richmond upon Thames | | 385| 411| 194| 108| 27% | | Southwark | | 1,208| 1,643| 567| 84 | 19% | | Sutton | | 627| 565| 109| 58 | 12% | | Tower Hamlets | | 4,968| 4,123| 1,377| 241| 15% | | Waltham Forest | | 406| 384| 210| 34 | 24% | | Wandsworth | | 1,597| 2,752| 1,100| 148| 22% | | Westminster | | 958| 1,105| 821| 236| 34% | | London | | 35,204| 32,775| 12,427| 3,704| 19% |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING | PROPOSED | NET | % aff. | |------------------------------|----------|----------|-----|--------| | | MARKET | SOC. RENT| INT. | AFF. RENT | PRS | MARKET | SOC. RENT | INT. | AFF. RENT | PRS | | | Barking and Dagenham | 73 | 152 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 208 | 192 | 20 | 36 | 0 | 135 | 40 | 20 | 36 | 0 | 42% | | Barnet | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 694 | 112 | 90 | 8 | 0 | 671 | 112 | 90 | 8 | 0 | 24% | | Bexley | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 399 | 55 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 379 | 54 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 13% | | Brent | 92 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,309 | 114 | 115 | 58 | 0 | 1,217 | 108 | 115 | 58 | 0 | 19% | | Bromley | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 327 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 288 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 6% | | Camden | 64 | 93 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,001 | 207 | 83 | 31 | 0 | 937 | 114 | 83 | 31 | 0 | 20% | | City of London | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 669 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 659 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | Croydon | 81 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,694 | 121 | 60 | 157 | 0 | 1,613 | 115 | 60 | 157 | 0 | 17% | | Ealing | 162 | 147 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 584 | 210 | 115 | 10 | 0 | 422 | 63 | 115 | 10 | 0 | 31% | | Enfield | 51 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 370 | 62 | 48 | 6 | 0 | 319 | -15 | 48 | 6 | 0 | 11% | | Greenwich | 66 | 45 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,064 | 436 | 274 | 76 | 0 | 1,998 | 391 | 274 | 76 | 0 | 27% | | Hackney | 56 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 309 | 59 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 253 | 50 | 36 | 0 | 0 | 25% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 172 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 692 | 5 | 128 | 28 | 0 | 520 | -19 | 128 | 28 | 0 | 21% | | Haringey | 72 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 291 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 219 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -0% | | Harrow | 47 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,007 | 28 | 35 | 43 | 0 | 960 | 28 | 35 | 43 | 0 | 10% | | Havering | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 229 | 8 | 16 | 7 | 0 | 218 | 8 | 16 | 7 | 0 | 12% | | Hillingdon | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 599 | 4 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 590 | 4 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 4% | | Hounslow | 22 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 573 | 264 | 43 | 12 | 0 | 551 | 230 | 43 | 12 | 0 | 34% | | Islington | 79 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,258 | 37 | 191 | 144 | 0 | 1,179 | 37 | 191 | 144 | 0 | 24% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 271 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,558 | 110 | 69 | 7 | 0 | 1,287 | 101 | 69 | 7 | 0 | 12% | | Kingston upon Thames | 59 | 36 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 233 | 28 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 174 | -8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -4% | | Lambeth | 146 | 262 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1,797 | 386 | 207 | 62 | 0 | 1,651 | 124 | 207 | 62 | 0 | 19% | | Lewisham | 105 | 151 | 0 | 46 | 0 | 2,030 | 190 | 378 | 130 | 0 | 1,925 | 39 | 378 | 84 | 0 | 21% | | Merton | 70 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 544 | 44 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 474 | 44 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 17% | | Newham | 70 | 32 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 6,221 | 420 | 535 | 301 | 134 | 6,151 | 388 | 502 | 301 | 134 | 16% | PROPOSED

NET

Source: London Development Database

% BOROUGH MAR- SOC. AFF. MAR- SOC. AFF. MAR- SOC. AFF. aff. INT. PRS INT. PRS INT. PRS NAME KET RENT RENT KET RENT RENT KET RENT RENT Redbridge 14 1 0 0 0 319 2 9 30 0 305 1 9 30 0 12% Richmond 93 0 1 0 0 784 80 16 0 0 691 80 15 0 0 12% upon Thames Southwark 130 327 3 0 0 2,476 311 231 104 0 2,346 -16 228 104 0 12% Sutton 46 12 0 0 0 640 2 18 23 0 594 -10 18 23 0 5% Tower 14 30 0 0 0 3,752 453 163 58 0 3,738 423 163 58 0 15% Hamlets Waltham 76 4 0 0 0 587 0 203 363 0 511 -4 203 363 0 52% Forest Wandsworth 115 8 0 0 0 1,036 25 80 4 0 921 17 80 4 0 10% Westminster 500 2 0 0 0 1,717 30 73 15 0 1,217 28 73 15 0 9% 37. 4.002 3.321 1.719 134 35, London 2,858 1,469 38 46 0 971 113 2,533 3,283 1,673 134 18%

EXISTING

TABLE HPM 9: CONVENTIONAL STARTS BY TENURE FY2014/15

8 2 AN N UAL M O NI TORI N G RE PORT 12 (2014/15)

| BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | |-------------------------------|--------------------| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | | Barking and Dagenham | 121| 166| 139| 30 | 37% | | Barnet | 263| 458| 96 | 87 | 20% | | Bexley | 89 | 208| 129| 32 | 35% | | Brent | 534| 608| 254| 200| 28% | | Bromley | 156| 133| 26 | 29 | 16% | | Camden | 532| 517| 228| 45 | 21% | | City of London | 284| 310| 68 | 7 | 11% | | Croydon | 1,213| 619| 130| 70 | 10% | | Ealing | 366| 379| 112| 62 | 19% | | Enfield | 202| 157| 99 | 28 | 26% | | Greenwich | 989| 1,276| 522| 63 | 21% | | Hackney | 148| 127| 88 | 41 | 32% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 344| 287| 151| 71 | 26% | | Haringey | 157| 94 | 26 | 14 | 14% | | Harrow | 462| 540| 84 | 27 | 10% | | Havering | 42 | 75 | 103| 31 | 53% | | Hillingdon | 312| 263| 39 | 7 | 7% | | Hounslow | 414| 338| 109| 31 | 16% | | Islington | 874| 528| 194| 31 | 14% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 634| 445| 411| 254| 38% | | Kingston upon Thames | 103| 83 | 35 | 43 | 30% | | Lambeth | 971| 1,138| 271| 72 | 14% | | Lewisham | 1,078| 1,284| 277| 89 | 13% | | Merton | 319| 225| 58 | 42 | 16% | | Newham | 2,703| 3,515| 1,108| 285| 18% | | Redbridge | 105| 122| 58 | 75 | 37% | | Richmond upon Thames | 324| 371| 102| 82 | 21% | | Southwark | 1,131| 1,398| 531| 62 | 19% | | Sutton | 337| 259| 46 | 41 | 13% | | Tower Hamlets | 2,095| 1,528| 688| 115| 18% | | Waltham Forest | 383| 463| 235| 72 | 27% | | Wandsworth | 323| 533| 233| 56 | 25% | | Westminster | 520| 633| 528| 154| 37% | | London | 18,528| 19,080| 7,178| 2,348| 20% |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH NAME | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | |-------------------------------|----------|-------|------|----------|-------|------|----------|-------|------| | Barking and Dagenham | 1,373 | 3,888 | 2,515| 289 | 11,145| 10,856| 1662 | 15033 | 13371| | Barnet | 1,095 | 12,091| 10,996| 2,414 | 6,090 | 3,676| 3509 | 18181 | 14672| | Bexley | 173 | 1,009 | 836 | 655 | 1,439 | 784 | 828 | 2448 | 1620 | | Brent | 646 | 2,469 | 1,823| 63 | 5,546 | 5,483| 709 | 8015 | 7306 | | Bromley | 218 | 1,860 | 1,642| 69 | 948 | 879 | 287 | 2808 | 2521 | | Camden | 768 | 3,436 | 2,668| 624 | 4,468 | 3,844| 1392 | 7904 | 6512 | | City of London | 20 | 493 | 473 | 5 | 461 | 456 | 25 | 954 | 929 | | Croydon | 184 | 5,089 | 4,905| 52 | 3,231 | 3,179| 236 | 8320 | 8084 | | Ealing | 509 | 6,799 | 6,290| 3,282 | 4,607 | 1,325| 3791 | 11406 | 7615 | | Enfield | 137 | 1,092 | 955 | 341 | 1,583 | 1,242| 478 | 2675 | 2197 | | Greenwich | 524 | 10,138| 9,614| 2,073 | 20,204| 18,131| 2597 | 30342 | 27745| | Hackney | 522 | 4,044 | 3,522| 2,710 | 6,160 | 3,450| 3232 | 10204 | 6972 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 927 | 10,359| 9,432| 200 | 4,274 | 4,074| 1127 | 14633 | 13506| | Haringey | 264 | 3,264 | 3,000| 50 | 771 | 721 | 314 | 4035 | 3721 | | Harrow | 138 | 2,597 | 2,459| 406 | 1,892 | 1,486| 544 | 4489 | 3945 | | Havering | 288 | 1,300 | 1,012| 368 | 2,848 | 2,480| 656 | 4148 | 3492 | | Hillingdon | 161 | 2,277 | 2,116| 50 | 2,424 | 2,374| 211 | 4701 | 4490 | | Hounslow | 54 | 2,820 | 2,766| 95 | 1,955 | 1,860| 149 | 4775 | 4626 | | Islington | 112 | 1,649 | 1,537| 368 | 3,795 | 3,427| 480 | 5444 | 4964 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 184 | 979 | 795 | 894 | 3,296 | 2,402| 1078 | 4275 | 3197 | | Kingston upon Thames | 64 | 1,152 | 1,088| 100 | 431 | 331 | 164 | 1583 | 1419 | | Lambeth | 246 | 4,534 | 4,288| 1,720 | 6,036 | 4,316| 1966 | 10570 | 8604 | | Lewisham | 82 | 4,562 | 4,480| 314 | 4,847 | 4,533| 396 | 9409 | 9013 | | Merton | 153 | 800 | 647 | 92 | 892 | 800 | 245 | 1692 | 1447 | | Newham | 16 | 10,353| 10,337| 362 | 11,163| 10,801| 378 | 21516 | 21138| | Redbridge | 153 | 1,286 | 1,133| 19 | 479 | 460 | 172 | 1765 | 1593 | | Richmond upon Thames | 172 | 1,149 | 977 | 112 | 962 | 850 | 284 | 2111 | 1827 | | BOROUGH NAME | NOT STARTED | UNDER CONSTRUCTION | TOTAL PIPELINE | |--------------|-------------|---------------------|----------------| | | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | EXISTING | GROSS | NET | | Southwark | 555 | 5,406 | 4,851 | 1,607 | 8,801 | 7,194 | 2162 | 14207 | 12045 | | Sutton | 142 | 2,103 | 1,961 | 693 | 865 | 172 | 835 | 2968 | 2133 | | Tower Hamlets| 768 | 17,164| 16,396| 1,584 | 16,484| 14,900| 2352 | 33648 | 31296 | | Waltham Forest| 49 | 1,738 | 1,689 | 55 | 1,687 | 1,632 | 104 | 3425 | 3321 | | Wandsworth | 297 | 7,804 | 7,507 | 544 | 12,057| 11,513| 841 | 19861 | 19020 | | Westminster | 635 | 4,096 | 3,461 | 590 | 4,431 | 3,841 | 1225 | 8527 | 7302 | | London | 11629 | 139800| 128171| 22800 | 156272| 133472| 34429| 296072| 261643|

Source: London Development Database

### TABLE HPM 12: GROSS CONVENTIONAL HOUSING PIPELINE AS AT 31/03/2015 BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS

| BOROUGH | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | % 3+ | |--------------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|------| | Barking and Dagenham | 2478| 6750| 4047| 1758| 39% | | Barnet | 5377| 7459| 2575| 930 | 21% | | Bexley | 507 | 1191| 470 | 280 | 31% | | Brent | 2847| 3351| 1446| 354 | 23% | | Bromley | 934 | 1173| 308 | 393 | 25% | | Camden | 2952| 3180| 1293| 478 | 22% | | City of London | 437 | 388 | 99 | 30 | 14% | | Croydon | 3927| 3113| 862 | 418 | 15% | | Ealing | 3543| 4860| 2328| 675 | 26% | | Enfield | 847 | 946 | 589 | 293 | 33% | | Greenwich | 12724| 11473| 4883| 492 | 18% | | Hackney | 3934| 3975| 1819| 475 | 22% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 6659| 5163| 2170| 639 | 19% | | Haringey | 2201| 1338| 331 | 150 | 12% | | Harrow | 1602| 1935| 562 | 390 | 21% | | Havering | 1216| 1634| 907 | 391 | 31% | | Hillingdon | 1551| 2154| 522 | 260 | 17% | | Hounslow | 2115| 1735| 754 | 171 | 19% | | Islington | 2378| 2199| 651 | 189 | 16% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1435| 1401| 996 | 443 | 34% | | Kingston upon Thames | 624 | 682 | 120 | 157 | 17% | | Lambeth | 4029| 4646| 1537| 358 | 18% | | Lewisham | 3555| 4559| 984 | 310 | 14% | | Merton | 747 | 610 | 178 | 133 | 19% | | Newham | 5084| 6565| 2748| 569 | 22% | | Redbridge | 735 | 676 | 241 | 113 | 20% | | Richmond upon Thames | 761 | 860 | 273 | 213 | 23% | | Southwark | 4800| 6067| 2805| 534 | 24% | | Sutton | 1132| 1407| 300 | 128 | 14% | | Tower Hamlets | 14509| 12338| 5606| 1184| 20% | | Waltham Forest | 1116| 1498| 661 | 150 | 24% | | Wandsworth | 5803| 9689| 3491| 873 | 22% | | Westminster | 2449| 3000| 2434| 576 | 36% | | London | 105,008| 118,015| 48,990| 14,507| 22% |

Source: London Development Database

Note: The table excludes units where the bedroom data is not known. | BOROUGH | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Barking and Dagenham | 130 | 273 | 126 | 67 | 71 | 100 | | Barnet | 102 | 100 | 70 | 52 | 81 | 82 | | Bexley | 83 | 80 | 101 | 64 | 77 | 56 | | Brent | 182 | 185 | 146 | 134 | 193 | 154 | | Bromley | 49 | 52 | 35 | 40 | 30 | 39 | | Camden | 140 | 139 | 181 | 188 | 131 | 169 | | City of London | 235 | 457 | 469 | 447 | 440 | 340 | | Croydon | 97 | 141 | 153 | 121 | 165 | 102 | | Ealing | 153 | 142 | 112 | 103 | 120 | 122 | | Enfield | 72 | 61 | 61 | 91 | 75 | 73 | | Greenwich | 145 | 337 | 239 | 233 | 239 | 233 | | Hackney | 277 | 211 | 236 | 187 | 244 | 389 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 300 | 181 | 243 | 218 | 391 | 281 | | Haringey | 107 | 117 | 214 | 150 | 102 | 141 | | Harrow | 83 | 63 | 89 | 92 | 68 | 130 | | Havering | 99 | 122 | 58 | 57 | 46 | 57 | | Hillingdon | 39 | 57 | 70 | 60 | 55 | 76 | | Hounslow | 62 | 75 | 124 | 67 | 138 | 201 | | Islington | 271 | 293 | 285 | 193 | 232 | 407 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 195 | 225 | 192 | 162 | 140 | 178 | | Kingston upon Thames | 64 | 63 | 50 | 34 | 58 | 83 | | Lambeth | 195 | 183 | 168 | 226 | 215 | 355 | | Lewisham | 229 | 133 | 230 | 128 | 143 | 139 | | Merton | 69 | 65 | 75 | 46 | 64 | 95 | | Newham | 266 | 398 | 372 | 127 | 167 | 285 | | Redbridge | 373 | 158 | 108 | 71 | 99 | 97 | | Richmond upon Thames | 46 | 106 | 71 | 53 | 91 | 93 | | Southwark | 230 | 224 | 209 | 365 | 297 | 221 | | Sutton | 58 | 57 | 106 | 57 | 146 | 120 | | Tower Hamlets | 362 | 318 | 477 | 220 | 442 | 461 | | Waltham Forest | 121 | 111 | 144 | 128 | 141 | 142 | | Wandsworth | 142 | 206 | 290 | 194 | 161 | 133 | | Westminster | 199 | 206 | 218 | 195 | 191 | 167 | | London | 149 | 136 | 163 | 128 | 148 | 160 |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Barking and Dagenham | 238 | 111 | 57 | 166 | 152 | 75 | | Barnet | 64 | 84 | 80 | 101 | 94 | 77 | | Bexley | 81 | 65 | 70 | 98 | 63 | 110 | | Brent | 150 | 156 | 141 | 141 | 129 | 110 | | Bromley | 30 | 49 | 46 | 48 | 31 | 44 | | Camden | 184 | 188 | 118 | 186 | 177 | 190 | | City of London | 500 | 306 | 857 | 376 | 808 | 478 | | Croydon | 121 | 101 | 75 | 82 | 76 | 97 | | Ealing | 110 | 112 | 103 | 101 | 121 | 105 | | Enfield | 61 | 86 | 59 | 73 | 98 | 70 | | Greenwich | 110 | 239 | 217 | 98 | 102 | 252 | | Hackney | 245 | 198 | 223 | 245 | 234 | 264 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 209 | 231 | 283 | 158 | 217 | 184 | | Haringey | 108 | 106 | 148 | 147 | 110 | 125 | | Harrow | 116 | 79 | 60 | 93 | 83 | 82 | | Havering | 72 | 53 | 66 | 49 | 29 | 49 | | Hillingdon | 94 | 44 | 25 | 102 | 61 | 55 | | Hounslow | 184 | 94 | 78 | 51 | 116 | 131 | | Islington | 199 | 187 | 296 | 207 | 215 | 235 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 126 | 194 | 153 | 157 | 112 | 229 | | Kingston upon Thames | 45 | 52 | 90 | 66 | 53 | 70 | | Lambeth | 157 | 290 | 167 | 158 | 199 | 165 | | Lewisham | 188 | 164 | 160 | 140 | 174 | 143 | | Merton | 67 | 101 | 78 | 132 | 93 | 45 | | Newham | 240 | 216 | 165 | 253 | 313 | 281 | | Redbridge | 100 | 218 | 172 | 84 | 84 | 63 | | Richmond upon Thames | 71 | 54 | 59 | 101 | 96 | 62 | | Southwark | 226 | 372 | 213 | 165 | 190 | 230 | | Sutton | 66 | 66 | 79 | 97 | 50 | 53 | | Tower Hamlets | 354 | 361 | 284 | 261 | 295 | 350 | | Waltham Forest | 117 | 160 | 125 | 133 | 114 | 136 | | Wandsworth | 165 | 104 | 125 | 151 | 111 | 212 | | Westminster | 260 | 142 | 195 | 214 | 217 | 186 | | London | 136 | 129 | 112 | 122 | 122 | 124 |

Source: London Development Database | BOROUGH | NUMBER OF BEDROOMS | PERCENTAGE | |-------------------------------|--------------------|------------| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4+ | N/K | % 1 | % 2 | % 3+ | | Barking and Dagenham | 34 | 40 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 45% | 53% | 1% | | Barnet | 424| 243| 14 | 2 | 5 | 62% | 36% | 2% | | Bexley | 62 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 71% | 29% | 0% | | Brent | 301| 68 | 3 | 0 | 17 | 81% | 18% | 1% | | Bromley | 346| 142| 6 | 2 | 0 | 70% | 29% | 2% | | Camden | 434| 250| 34 | 4 | 0 | 60% | 35% | 5% | | City of London | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Croydon | 1,451| 451| 16 | 0 | 0 | 76% | 24% | 1% | | Ealing | 159| 70 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 68% | 30% | 2% | | Enfield | 220| 57 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 79% | 20% | 1% | | Greenwich | 38 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 61% | 35% | 3% | | Hackney | 29 | 13 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 56% | 25% | 19% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 169| 156| 28 | 1 | 2 | 48% | 44% | 8% | | Haringey | 148| 14 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 90% | 8% | 2% | | Harrow | 508| 166| 6 | 0 | 0 | 75% | 24% | 1% | | Havering | 82 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 71% | 29% | 0% | | Hillingdon | 313| 40 | 3 | 0 | 214 | 88% | 11% | 1% | | Hounslow | 457| 121| 2 | 0 | 0 | 79% | 21% | 0% | | Islington | 225| 96 | 9 | 4 | 29 | 67% | 29% | 4% | | Kensington and Chelsea | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | | Kingston upon Thames | 260| 128| 9 | 3 | 0 | 65% | 32% | 3% | | Lambeth | 385| 99 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 77% | 20% | 4% | | Lewisham | 386| 99 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80% | 20% | 0% | | Merton | 213| 71 | 7 | 3 | 24 | 72% | 24% | 3% | | Newham | 81 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 66% | 34% | 0% | | Redbridge | 122| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82% | 18% | 0% | | Richmond upon Thames | 212| 173| 36 | 4 | 2 | 50% | 41% | 9% | | Southwark | 53 | 57 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 46% | 50% | 4% | | Sutton | 419| 306| 15 | 1 | 0 | 57% | 41% | 2% | | Tower Hamlets | 217| 98 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 67% | 30% | 3% | | Waltham Forest | 92 | 27 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 77% | 23% | 1% | | Wandsworth | 213| 223| 39 | 1 | 1 | 45% | 47% | 8% | | Westminster | 34 | 40 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 38% | 44% | 18% | | London | 8,087| 3,396| 292| 33 | 295 | 68% | 29% | 3% |

Source: London Development Database

Note: The Not Knowns are not included in the percentage calculations MAP 1 TOTAL HOUSING DELIVERY 2014/15 (EXCLUDING VACANTS)

Source: The London Development Database, GLA Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032216 (2016) MAP 2 TOTAL HOUSING DELIVERY AS A PERCENTAGE OF LONDON PLAN HOUSING MONITORING BENCHMARKS (EXCLUDING VACANTS) MAP 3 NET AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY AS A PERCENTAGE OF NET CONVENTIONAL HOUSING DELIVERY 2014/15

Source: The London Development Database, GLA

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032216 (2016) Net Conventional Housing Pipeline as at 31/03/2015

- 26,000 to 32,000
- 19,000 to 25,999
- 13,000 to 18,999
- 7,000 to 12,999
- 900 to 6,999

Source: The London Development Database, GLA © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032216 (2016) AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY MONITOR

3.38 The measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. Therefore it is usually higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor.

3.39 The data source for monitoring affordable housing delivery targets is the set of statistics on affordable housing supply published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. DCLG no longer publish regional statistics but have provided the GLA with updated figures at London level.

3.40 These statistics are compiled from a range of sources. The vast majority of delivery in London in recent years has been funded by the Greater London Authority, but the statistics also include units provided without any public funding and a number of assisted purchases.

3.41 Table AHM2 shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the four years 2011/12 to 2014/15. Over this period a total of 53,430 affordable homes were delivered, of which 23,200 were social rented housing, 17,490 intermediate

FIGURE 5 CHANGE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY

![Affordable housing delivery in London, 1991/92 to 2014/15](image)

Source: DCLG housing and 12,270 were Affordable Rent.

3.42 Figure 3.2 shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. The 18,270 affordable homes delivered in London in 2014/15 represented the highest figure on record, exceeding the previous peaks in 1995/96 (17,150) and 2011/12 (17,220).

INTERMEDIATE HOUSING

3.43 Paragraph 3.62 of the 2015 London Plan sets out the income thresholds for intermediate housing and states that these will be updated on an annual basis in the London Plan annual monitoring reports. The thresholds are therefore to be updated as follows. Intermediate provision is sub-market housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social rented housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £90,000. This figure has been updated on the basis of the latest data (from 2015) on lower quartile house prices in London rounded, and is an increase from the figure of £71,000 in AMR 11.

3.44 In his 2011 replacement London Plan, the Mayor set out a higher intermediate housing income threshold of £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London. This figure was derived by uprating the upper income threshold in the Plan (£61,400) by 20%. However, in line with the Government’s approach to shared ownership, from April 2016 people wanting to access intermediate products will no longer be restricted in terms of the size of units they buy or rent. Therefore, a single £90,000 household income will apply to all intermediate housing; in effect removing the higher income cap for families in larger homes. To ensure there is the flexibility to meet the needs of all households, the income cap has been rounded to the nearest £10,000 rather than the nearest £1,000, as it had been previously. Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new Affordable Rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.

3.45 For dwellings to be considered affordable, annual housing costs, including mortgage (assuming reasonable interest rates and deposit requirements), rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income, based on the household income limits set out above. Further guidance is provided in the Draft Interim Housing SPG.

3.46 Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £55,850 pa. On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £1,303 a month or £301 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes.

3.47 These intermediate income caps are also applied by the GLA to determine eligibility for GLA funded intermediate products.

LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICIES

3.48 Paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) requires all boroughs which have identified a need for affordable housing to set out policies for meeting this need. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that targets should be consistent with the overall strategic target of at least 17,000 affordable homes in London p.a. (This target relates to the 2015 London Plan, increased from 13,200 in the 2011 Plan). Boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, the London Plan sets out a range of issues boroughs should consider (capacity, viability, balanced communities etc). Table AHM1 shows adopted borough affordable housing policies.

| BOROUGH | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002 | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010 | ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2015 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) | EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET | |------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | None | None, use London Plan | Use London Plan Policy | n/a | | Barnet | 30 | 50% | 40% (Sept 2012) | n/a | | Bexley | 25 | 35% | 50% and a minimum of 35% of units to be affordable housing (Feb 2012) | n/a | | Brent | 30-50 | 50% | 50% (July 2010) | n/a | | Bromley | 20 | 35% | 35% (March 2008) | Plan currently being reviewed | | Camden | 50 Proposed | 50% for >50 dwellings 10-50% for \<50 dwellings | 50% for >50 dwellings, 10-50% for \<50 Dwellings (Nov 2010) | Between 1 and 24 additional homes – starting at 2% for 1 home, increasing by 2% for each added housing capacity. >25 Dwellings - 50% | | BOROUGH | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002 | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010 | ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2015 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) | EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET | |-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | City of London | None | 50% | 30% on site and 60% off site (Jan 2015) | n/a | | Croydon | 40 | 40-50% | 50% (April 2013) | Plan currently being reviewed (50%) | | Ealing | 50 | 50% | 50% (April 2012) | n/a | | Enfield | 25 | 40% | 40% (Nov 2010) | n/a | | Greenwich | 35 | 35% min | 35% minimum (July 2014) | n/a | | Hackney | 25 | 50% | 50% (Nov 2010) | n/a | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 65 | 50% | 40% (Oct 2011) | Plan currently being reviewed (min 40% 2015) | | Haringey | 30 | 50% | 50% Affordable Housing on site (March 2013) | Plan currently being reviewed (40% 2016) | | Harrow | 30 | London Plan | 40% (Feb 2012) | n/a | | Havering | None | 50% | 50% (2008) | Emerging | | Hillingdon | 25 | 365 u/pa (50%) | 35% (Nov 2012) | Plan currently being reviewed (35% Oct 2015) | | Hounslow | 50 | 445 u/pa (50%) | 40% (Sept 2015) | n/a | | Islington | 25 | 45% | 50% (Feb 2011) | n/a | | Kensington & Chelsea | 33 | Min of 200 units per an from 2011/12 with site specific policy of 50%affordable by floorarea | 50% (Dec 2010) | Plan currently being reviewed (50% Jul 2015) | | Kingston upon Thames | 50 | 35% | 50% (April 2012) | n/a | | Lambeth | 35-50 | 40% (50% withgrant) | 50% when public subsidy, 40% without (Sep 2015) | n/a | | Lewisham | 30 | 35% | 50% (June 2011) | Emerging | | London Legacy Development Corporation | 30 | 35% | 35% minimum (July 2015) | n/a | | Merton | 30 | London Plan | 40% (July 2011) | n/a | | BOROUGH | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET % (OR PRACTICE) AS AT 2002 | BOROUGH POLICY TARGET IN 2010 | ADOPTED BOROUGH POLICY TARGET AS AT DECEMBER 2015 (NUMERICAL / PERCENTAGE) | EMERGING BOROUGH POLICY TARGET | |-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------| | Newham | 25 | London Plan | 50% (Jan 2012) | n/a | | Redbridge | 25 | 50% | 50% (March 2008) | Emerging | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 50% | 50% (April 2009) | Emerging | | Southwark | 25 | 50% overall (40% in CAZ, 35% in E&C and suburban zones) | 35% (April 2011) | Plan currently being reviewed (35%) | | Sutton | 25 | 50% | 50% (Dec 2009) | Emerging | | Tower Hamlets | 25-33 | 50% overall, 35-50% on individual sites | 50% overall (Sept 2010) | Emerging | | Waltham Forest | 40 | 50% | 50% (March 2012) | n/a | | Wandsworth | None | Min 373 units per an (to be reviewed on adoption of the LP) | 33% minimum (Oct 2010) | Currently being reviewed (on individual sites at least 33%, in Nine Elms at least 15%) | | Westminster | - | 50% overall | 30% (Nov 2013) | Emerging |

### TABLE AHM 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY IN LONDON BY TYPE, 2010/11 TO 2013/14

| AFFORDABLE HOUSING DELIVERY TYPE | 2011/12 | 2012/13 | 2013/14 | 2014/15 | TOTAL | |----------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | Social Rent, of which: | | | | | | | HCA or GLA (new build) | 11,370 | 5,060 | 3,590 | 3,180 | 23,200| | HCA or GLA (acquisitions) | 9,070 | 4,470 | 2,780 | 2,140 | 18,460| | Affordable Housing Guarantees | 810 | 160 | 80 | 60 | 1,110 | | HCA or GLA Schemes | 420 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 460 | | Local authorities | 600 | 120 | 150 | 370 | 1,240 | | of which HCA grant funded (new build) | 500 | 100 | 110 | 220 | 930 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 220 | 100 | 260 | 400 | 980 | | of which, reported on IMS/PCS | 80 | 50 | 200 | 340 | 670 | | Private Finance Initiative | 160 | 90 | 0 | 0 | 250 | | Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches | 20 | 0 | 10 | 80 | 110 | | Other | 90 | 120 | 210 | 10 | 430 | | Affordable Rent, of which: | | | | | | | HCA or GLA (new build) | 130 | 280 | 2,250 | 9,610 | 12,270| | HCA or GLA (acquisitions) | 90 | 150 | 1,130 | 5,880 | 7,250 | | Affordable Housing Guarantees | 50 | 80 | 380 | 1,370 | 1,880 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 0 | 40 | 280 | 830 | 1,150 | | of which, reported on IMS/PCS | 0 | 40 | 280 | 830 | 1,150 | | Permanent Affordable Traveller Pitches | 0 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 | | Local authorities | 0 | 0 | 380 | 910 | 1,290 | | Other | 0 | 10 | 20 | 10 | 40 | | Intermediate Affordable Housing | 5,710 | 3,360 | 3,390 | 5,480 | 17,940| | Intermediate Rent, of which: | 890 | 380 | 490 | 40 | 1,800 | | HCA or GLA (new build) | 760 | 330 | 440 | 20 | 1,550 | | HCA or GLA (acquisitions) | 30 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 50 | | Other | 110 | 40 | 50 | 10 | 210 | | Affordable Home Ownership, of which: | 4,820 | 2,980 | 2,900 | 5,450 | 16,150| | HCA or GLA (new build) | 4,190 | 2,500 | 1,870 | 3,860 | 12,420| | of which FirstBuy | 290 | 600 | 20 | 0 | 910 | | HCA or GLA (acquisitions) | 100 | 30 | 90 | 120 | 340 | | Affordable Housing Guarantees | - | - | 190 | 210 | 400 | | Other HCA or GLA Schemes | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 | | Local authorities | 10 | 10 | 20 | 50 | 90 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 210 | 330 | 610 | 1,020 | 2,170 | | of which, reported on IMS/PCS | 100 | 200 | 610 | 1,020 | 1,930 | | Assisted Purchase Schemes | 280 | 110 | 120 | 160 | 670 | | Other | 20 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 50 | | All affordable | 17,220 | 8,710 | 9,230 | 18,270 | 53,430|

See DCLG live table 1000 and statistical release for full notes and definitions. Figures for some previous years have been revised.

### TABLE AHM 3: AFFORDABLE DELIVERY IN LONDON BY TENURE, 2014/15

| BOROUGH | SOCIAL RENT | AFFORDABLE RENT | INTERMEDIATE | TOTAL | |--------------------------|-------------|-----------------|--------------|--------| | Barking and Dagenham | 382 | 691 | 119 | 1,192 | | Barnet | 167 | 239 | 62 | 468 | | Bexley | 32 | 208 | 152 | 392 | | Brent | 165 | 509 | 650 | 1,324 | | Bromley | 30 | 114 | 67 | 211 | | Camden | 50 | 214 | 57 | 321 | | City of London | 43 | 0 | 0 | 43 | | Croydon | 58 | 814 | 191 | 1,063 | | Ealing | 125 | 512 | 142 | 779 | | Enfield | 59 | 309 | 171 | 539 | | Greenwich | 252 | 350 | 326 | 928 | | Hackney | 244 | 337 | 312 | 893 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 27 | 61 | 81 | 169 | | Haringey | 0 | 218 | 204 | 422 | | Harrow | 1 | 155 | 117 | 273 | | Havering | 58 | 417 | 309 | 784 | | Hillingdon | 0 | 262 | 27 | 289 | | Hounslow | 129 | 383 | 217 | 729 | | Islington | 77 | 21 | 28 | 126 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 75 | 4 | 68 | 147 | | Kingston upon Thames | 29 | 153 | 18 | 200 | | Lambeth | 207 | 202 | 444 | 853 | | Lewisham | 140 | 430 | 173 | 743 | | Merton | 41 | 64 | 36 | 141 | | Newham | 59 | 268 | 157 | 484 | | Redbridge | 40 | 40 | 9 | 89 | | Richmond upon Thames | 2 | 68 | 3 | 73 | | Southwark | 276 | 363 | 542 | 1,181 | | Sutton | 22 | 266 | 11 | 299 | | Tower Hamlets | 288 | 597 | 333 | 1,218 | | Waltham Forest | 28 | 735 | 249 | 1,012 | | Wandsworth | 10 | 408 | 182 | 600 | | Westminster | 61 | 194 | 26 | 281 | | London | 3,177 | 9,606 | 5,483 | 18,266 |

Source: DCLG ACHIEVING AN INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT

3.49 The LDD has been collecting data on Lifetime and Wheelchair Accessible Homes on all approvals since 2008. More details of the standard can be found at http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/index.php. The standards for Wheelchair Housing are contained in the Accessible London SPG which can be found at https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/publications/accessible-london-achieving-an-inclusive-environment. The figures in the table are ‘gross’ approvals and calculated at scheme level, so units could be counted twice where a revised application for part of a scheme is approved within the same year as the original approval (usually through details or reserved matters applications). Percentages are shown rather than absolute numbers to avoid confusion as total units will be higher than total approvals in the Housing Monitor.

3.50 Although developers should seek 100% compliance with Lifetime Homes standards for all development types, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use. Separate totals are therefore shown for all schemes and for new build schemes for which 100% compliance is a more achievable goal.

3.51 The data in Table 3.5 shows that compliance with Lifetime Homes standards on all approvals is 64%, down from 75% in 2014/15 and 85% in 2012/13. The total rises to 79.9% for new builds. 7% of all homes, and 8.8% of new builds are designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.

3.52 Despite these standards now being accepted as the norm in London, the achievement of London Plan targets of 100% Lifetime Homes and 10% Wheelchair Homes remains out of reach in terms of all units. One of the key reasons is that several boroughs only require compliance on schemes above a certain size, often ten units or more, even on new build schemes. The inclusion of applications for change of use from office to residential via permitted development has also affected the level of compliance for non-new build schemes. The streamlined application process does not require applicants to provide details of compliance with these standards or permit local authorities to require it. In the absence of better information, the office to residential prior approvals have been assumed to not comply. If these consents are excluded, the % compliance rises to 75%.

3.53 The Lifetime and wheelchair homes standards were replaced by the Government’s new technical housing standards on 1st October 2015. More details can be found in the Building Regulations Part M volume 1 which can be downloaded at http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_M1_2015.pdf. These changes are being incorporated into the London Plan in the Minor Alterations to the London Plan 2015/16. The new technical standards include three categories of access to new dwellings; M4(1) Visitable dwellings, M4(2) Accessible and adaptable dwellings and M4(3) Wheelchair user dwellings. Compliance with M4(2) and M4(3) will continue to be monitored using the LDD, but the new standards can only be applied to new build dwellings.

| BOROUGH NAME | % LIFETIME HOMES, ALL UNITS | % WHEELCHAIR HOMES, ALL UNITS | % LIFETIME HOMES, NEW BUILD | % WHEELCHAIR HOMES, NEW BUILD | |-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 95.6 | 3.5 | 99.8 | 3.6 | | Barnet | 50.7 | 3.9 | 89.5 | 6.8 | | Bexley | 46.3 | 15.1 | 67.2 | 21.2 | | Brent | 50.8 | 4.7 | 83.1 | 7.7 | | Bromley | 30.4 | 2.3 | 59.3 | 4.6 | | Camden | 59.7 | 6.3 | 89.4 | 9.0 | | City of London | 79.7 | 8.8 | 97.8 | 10.0 | | Croydon | 40.1 | 6.3 | 74.7 | 12.9 | | Ealing | 68.2 | 7.2 | 87.4 | 9.2 | | Enfield | 44.2 | 5.6 | 81.2 | 11.3 | | Greenwich | 97.4 | 9.4 | 99.7 | 9.3 | | Hackney | 97.1 | 11.2 | 99.6 | 11.6 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 81.3 | 8.2 | 97.9 | 9.6 | | Haringey | 61.2 | 9.6 | 82.8 | 14.1 | | Harrow | 39.1 | 7.9 | 95.7 | 12.9 | | Havering | 67.9 | 3.9 | 79.3 | 3.2 | | Hillingdon | 58.0 | 3.9 | 99.9 | 6.7 | | Hounslow | 11.8 | 4.3 | 15.0 | 5.0 | | Islington | 74.0 | 6.6 | 99.2 | 8.8 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 30.9 | 11.7 | 33.8 | 12.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 61.9 | 4.8 | 100.0 | 8.3 | | Lambeth | 82.1 | 8.5 | 97.4 | 10.1 | | Lewisham | 48.8 | 13.6 | 70.5 | 20.9 | | Merton | 48.0 | 0.0 | 94.6 | 0.0 | | Newham | 86.9 | 9.1 | 97.3 | 10.1 | | Redbridge | 72.9 | 7.1 | 90.9 | 9.1 | | Richmond upon Thames | 44.4 | 3.1 | 82.1 | 4.7 | | Southwark | 67.5 | 8.5 | 74.7 | 9.5 | | Sutton | 35.1 | 4.0 | 94.2 | 12.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 75.3 | 7.8 | 78.4 | 8.1 | | Waltham Forest | 71.6 | 6.0 | 91.2 | 7.8 | | Wandsworth | 30.6 | 2.9 | 34.9 | 3.3 | | Westminster | 44.4 | 3.8 | 69.6 | 5.1 | | London | 64.2 | 7 | 81.3 | 8.8 |

Source: London Development Database ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT

PTAL MAP

3.54 In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). The 2015 PTAL map (map 7) is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from Transport for London (TfL).

3.55 TfL have developed a web based tool to help transport planners named WebCAT (Web-based Connectivity Assessment Toolkit) which can be used to generate site specific PTALs. More information can be found at https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/planning-with-webcat. CROSSRAIL FUNDING

3.56 For London to continue to make progress in reducing its reliance on the private car, considerable investment in public transport is required. Crossrail is a £15bn investment travelling east-west through the heart of London, serving substantial suburban locations. Under the funding agreement with the Government the Mayor is required to raise £600m from developer contributions via both S106 contributions related to the Crossrail funding SPG and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Mayor’s CIL came into effect in April 2012 and it raises funds to contribute to the construction of Crossrail. The CIL is a London-wide charge, applying to most land uses. In April 2013 the Mayor published the updated “Use of Planning Obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy” SPG

3.57 Table 3.6 shows funding secured for Crossrail to date from each funding stream is rising year on year. The CIL regulations 2010 (as amended) require the Mayor to report on various aspects of how CIL receipts are being spent. This is set out in Table 3.6a. It is not possible to link CIL to a specific type of expenditure as the proceeds are transferred into the Sponsor Funding account (SFA), which then draws on the total to be spent in line with the project’s requirements. The amount of CIL ‘in hand’ is zero, as all of it is transferred to the SFA to fund the Crossrail scheme on a quarterly basis.

| TABLE 3.6 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS FUNDING CROSSRAIL (£M). NET OF CIL ADMINISTRATION COSTS. | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | S106 | YEAR | CIL | |------|------|-----| | 0.24 | 2010/11 | 0 | | 1.43 | 2011/12 | 0 | | 17.20 | 2012/13 | 6.09 | | 13.31 | 2013/14 | 46.69 | | 13.69 | 2014/15 | 73.19 | | 25.68 | 2015/16\* | 81.41 | | 2016/17 | | | | 2017/18 | | | | 2018/19 | | | | 2019/20 | | | | 71.55 | Total | 207.38 |

| TABLE 3.6A USE OF CIL RECEIPTS | |---------------------------------| | CATEGORY | £ | | Total CIL Expenditure | 207,379,548 | | amount used to repay borrowing | 0 | | amount spent (2015/16) on administration by TfL/ GLA (up to 1%) | 500,000# | | amount spent (2015/16) on administration by collecting authorities (up to 4%) | 3,394,402## | | amount of CIL ‘in-hand’ | 0 |

- figures for 2015/16 are based on actual income up to the end of December 2015.

# TfL / GLA admin fee capped at £500k in 2015/16.

## figures correct to the end of December 2015

Source: Transport for London PROGRESS ON REGIONAL FLOOD RISK APPRAISAL RECOMMENDATIONS

3.59 The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) first review was published in August 2014 and suggests some changes to the recommendations. It now contains 14 recommendations - progress against which is being monitored via the AMR. Table 3.7 provides an overview of progress at February 2016.

3.60 The potential benefits and feasibility of monitoring the implementation of SUDS is being considered for inclusion in future AMRs. This will be explored further in cooperation with Lead Local Flood Authorities and the Environment Agency.

| NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT FEBRUARY 2015 | |-----|----------------|--------------------------| | 1 | All Thames-side planning authorities should consider in their SFRAs and put in place Local Plan policies to promote the setting back of development from the edge of the Thames and tidal Tributaries to enable sustainable and cost effective upgrade of river walls/embankments in line with Policy 5.12, CFMPs, TE2100 and advice from the Environment Agency. | Most boroughs are now making reasonable progress in recognising this in either their SFRAs or DPDs. LB Hounslow and City of London have both had their Local Plans adopted in 2015 and includes the principle of setting back development within their flood risk policies. | | 2 | The London Boroughs of Richmond, Kingston, Hounslow and Wandsworth should put in place policies to ensure alternative responses to managing Fluvial risk such as flood resilience measures (e.g. Flood gates) or Potentially safeguarding land for Future flood storage or, on the fluvial tributaries, setting back local defences or any resilience measures between Teddington Lock and Hammersmith Bridge in line with TE2100 findings. | LB Hounslow and City of London have both included the need to consider the raising of flood walls in line with TE2100 recommendation for development along the River Thames. LBs Richmond, Kingston, and Wandsworth have policies in their Local Plans to address flood risk management from all sources. Wandsworth’s policy in particular ensures that developments take into account the ability To implement future improvements to flood defences, in accordance with the TE2100 Plan. | | 3 | The London Boroughs of Newham and Greenwich should work with the Environment Agency on issues such as the potential safeguarding of potential land needs around the existing Thames Barrier, and the London Borough of Bexley should work with the Environment agency on future flood risk management options in line with TE2100 findings. | RB Greenwich has up-to-date Local Plan policies in place to ensure the potential safeguarding of land needs around the existing Thames Barrier. LB Newham and LB Bexley are both working with the Environment Agency to update the flood risk policies in their emerging Local Plans, including TE2100 Plan requirements. | | NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT FEBRUARY 2015 | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 4 | Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the river Thames should ensure flood risk assessments (FRAs) include an assessment of the interaction of all forms of flooding, but fluvial and tidal flood risks in particular. These are the London Boroughs of Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston. | Tidal influences are generally taken into account in the SFRAs modelling addressing the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at confluences. | | 5 | Regeneration and redevelopment of London’s fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in the Thames CFMP. In particular opportunities should be sought to:\
• Set back development from the river edge to enable sustainable and cost effective flood risk management\
• Options\
• Ensure that developments at residual flood risk are designed to be flood compatible and/or flood resilient\
• Maximise the use of open spaces within developments which have a residual flood risk to make space for flood water. | These measures are becoming increasingly regularly built into SFRAs, local policies, development frameworks and planning applications. | | NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT FEBRUARY 2015 | |-----|----------------|--------------------------| | 6 | Developments all across London should reduce surface water discharge in line with the Sustainable Drainage hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the London Plan, the emerging Sustainable Design and construction SPG and the emerging London Sustainable Drainage Action Plan (LSDAP). | Since the changes to the NPPF guidance requiring sustainable drainage to be considered in major developments, and the publication of the updated Sustainable Design and Construction SPG in 2014 the Environment Agency has seen an improvement in drainage strategies they have reviewed. Larger reductions in run-off rates are being achieved. In strategic developments reviewed by the GLA, many developments achieve greenfield run-off rates and almost all achieve at least a 50% reduction in run-off rates compared to the existing site. The London Sustainable Drainage Action Plan will be published later in 2016 and will focus on retrofitting sustainable drainage to existing land and buildings. The Drain London project has commissioned consultants to produce a SUDS Opportunity Map for London, this will be available later in 2016 and will highlight a range of SUDS options for all land and buildings across London. | | 7 | Thames Water should continue its programme of addressing foul sewer flooding. | Thames Water continues to address localised sewer flooding problems and during 2015 undertook the first stage of consultation in respect of a major project in the Hammersmith-Kensington area known as Counters Creek Storm Relief Sewer. The second phase of pre-application consultation is currently open until April 2016. | | 8 | The groundwater flood risk in identified locations (see IPEG map) should be considered in Fras and SFRAs to ensure that its impacts do not increase. | As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be included, and is starting to be addressed in some site specific FRAs as well. | | 9 | The reservoir flood risk in identified locations (see reservoir flood maps) should be in considered in FRAs and SFRAs to ensure its impacts do not increase. | As SFRAs are reviewed, this is starting to be included, and is starting to be addressed in some site specific FRAs as well. |

### TABLE 3.7 PROGRESS ON REGIONAL FLOOD RISK APPRAISAL RECOMMENDATIONS

| NO. | RECOMMENDATION | PROGRESS AT FEBRUARY 2015 | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 10 | Detailed flood risk assessments should be undertaken at an early stage at the level of individual major development locations and town centre development sites, and opportunities to reduce flood risk should be maximised where possible. | This is generally being achieved and the GLA is leading work to promote Integrated Water Management Strategies at major development locations including VNEB and Old Oak Common. | | 11 | Relevant transport authorities and operators should examine and regularly review their infrastructure including the networks, stations, depots, underpasses and tunnels for potential flooding locations and flood risk reduction measures. For large stations and depots, solutions should be sought to store or disperse rainwater from heavy storms. | London Underground and Transport for London are undertaking a comprehensive review of flood risk to their assets and Infrastructure. Other transport authorities will need to be contacted. | | 12 | Emergency service authorities and operators covering hospitals, ambulance, fire and police stations as well as prisons should ensure that Emergency Plans in particular for facilities in flood risk areas are in place and regularly reviewed so that they can cope in the event of a major flood. These plans should put in place cover arrangements through other suitable facilities. | Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at hospital and emergency services sites across London. | | 13 | Education authorities should ensure that emergency plans in particular for facilities in flood risk areas are in place and regularly reviewed so that they can cope in the event of a major flood. These plans should put in place cover arrangements through other suitable facilities. | Through Drain London the GLA has undertaken work to examine surface water flood risk at secondary school sites across London. The LSDAP identifies school sites as having a good range of opportunities to implement more sustainable drainage measures. | | 14 | Operators of electricity, gas, water, sewerage, and waste utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of The flood risk to their installations and, considering the likely impacts of failure, establish any necessary protection measures including secondary flood defences. | The GLA recognises that it needs to confirm progress with these utility providers. |

Source: GLA and Environment Agency PLANNING

PROGRESS WITH SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

3.61 The Mayor produces Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. In 2015 the Mayor published the Social Infrastructure SPG (May 2015).

3.62 In addition two draft SPGs, Interim Housing (May 2015) and Central Activities Zone (September 2015), were also published.

3.63 All complete and draft SPG are available on the Mayor’s website https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/supplementary-planningguidance

LONDON BOROUGHS POLICY CONSULTATIONS

3.64 This section lists London borough policy documents published in 2015.

3.65 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires local planning authorities to produce a Local Plan for their area. In law this is described as the development plan documents (DPDs) adopted under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Current core strategies or other planning policies, which under the regulations would be considered to be DPDs, form part of the Local Plan. Several planning authorities in London are currently in the process of reviewing their Local Plans to respond to the changing circumstances in their area.

3.66 All London borough Local Development Documents (LDDs), comprising core strategies, DPDs or other LDDs, are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, Regulation 18 requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to notify the Mayor of the subject of a local plan. This is the Preparation stage. The Mayor will endeavour to provide comments to the LPAs at this stage but is not required to respond to the consultation.

3.67 Under Regulation 19, before submitting the local plan to the Secretary of State, LPAs must make a copy of the proposed submission documents available and must request an opinion from the Mayor as to the general conformity of their local plans (Regulation 21). This is the Publication stage. The Mayor has 6 weeks to respond to the consultation. The Mayor will respond to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD) that raise strategic issues only.

3.68 In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor works proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor’s response to consultation. Table 3.8 lists policy documents the LPAs worked on in 2013; the Mayor responded to many of them.

| BOROUGH | POLICY DOCUMENTS | |--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | - | | Barnet | - | | Bexley | CIL charging schedule 30 April 2015 | | | CIL Regulation 123 list April 2015 | | Brent | Implications of Changes to the Planning System on Brent’s Policies (May 2015) | | | Wembley Arena Action Plan | | Bromley | - | | Camden | Camden planning guidance (part) | | City of London | Adopted Local Plan | | | Thames Strategy | | | Office Use | | | Open Space Strategy | | | Barbican Estate listed building management guidelines (Volume 4) | | | Finsbury Circus Conservation Area | | | Foster Lane Conservation Area | | Croydon | - | | Ealing | Local Development Scheme | | | Planning for Schools DPD | | | Southall Gateway SPD | | | Planning New Garden Space SPD | | | Central Acton Neighbourhood Revised Development Plan consultation | | Enfield | CIL Regulation 123 Infrastructure List (Draft) | | | Revised Draft Section 106 SPD | | | Decentralised Energy Network Technical Specification SPD (Draft) | | | Revised SCI in Planning | | Greenwich | Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance | | Hackney | Development Management Local Plan Policies map | | | Proposed SALP Post Submission Modifications Version | | | Stamford Hill AAP | | | Planning Contributions SPD (CIL) | | | Various Permitted Developments | | Hammersmith & Fulham | Local Plan (Draft) | | | Revised SCI in Planning | | | CIL regulation 123 list | | | Local Development Scheme | | Haringey | - | | Harrow | Harrow School SPD (consultation) | | Havering | - | | Hillingdon | Local Plan Part 2 (Draft) | | BOROUGH | POLICY DOCUMENTS | |-------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Hounslow | Local Plan 2015-30<br>Planning Obligations and CIL SPD<br>CIL regulation 123 list and Viability | | Islington | Finsbury Park Development Framework SPD<br>Location and Concentration of Uses SPD - Consultation Draft<br>Preventing Wasted Housing Supply SPD | | Kensington & Chelsea | Consolidated Local Plan<br>Notting Hill Gate SPD<br>Trellick-Edenham Planning Brief SPD<br>St Quintin and Woodlands – Referendum<br>CIL Regulation 123 List<br>Construction Environment Management Plan | | Kingston upon Thames | EDEN Quarter development brief SPD<br>Local Development Scheme | | Lambeth | Local Plan 2015<br>Policies Map 2015<br>Building Alterations and Extensions SPD<br>Local Development Scheme<br>SCI | | Lewisham | Local Development Scheme<br>Planning Obligations SPD<br>River Corridor Improvement Plan<br>Local Plan Consultation on Main Issues<br>Local Plan IDP – framework document | | London Legacy Development Corporation | Hackney Wick Management Guidelines<br>Fish Island and White Post Lane Management Guidelines<br>Local Plan 2015-2031<br>Local Plan Policies Map<br>CIL Regulations 123<br>Draft Planning Obligations SPD | | Merton | Borough-wide map of Article 4 extent<br>Secretary of State modification of Merton’s Article 4 direction | | Newham | - | | Redbridge | Planning Brief for Station Estate and adjacent Land, Eastwood Close, South Woodford<br>Draft Planning Brief for Marlyon Road, Hainault<br>Medway Close Planning Policy & Design Statement<br>Pershore Close, Gants Hill Planning Policy & Design Statement<br>Stanway Close and Oakmoor Way, Hainault Planning and Design Statement | | BOROUGH | POLICY DOCUMENTS | |-------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Richmond upon Thames | Draft REVISED Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report for the Local Plan | | | Article 4 Direction | | | Buildings of Townscape Merit SPD | | | House Extensions and External Alterations SPD | | | Refuse And Recycling Storage Requirements SPD | | | Housing Optional Technical Standards update | | | Barnes Village Plan SPD | | | East Sheen Village Plan SPD | | | Mortlake Village Plan SPD | | | Housing Optional Technical Standards update | | | Good Practice Guide on Basement Developments | | | Delivering SuDS in Richmond | | | Addendum to SCI | | Southwark | Canada Water AAP | | | Confirmed Article 4 Direction - Use Class A1 to A2 | | | CIL Charging Schedule April 2015 | | | Section 106 Planning Obligations and CIL | | | Draft Development Viability SPD | | | New Southwark Plan Preferred Option | | | New Southwark Plan | | Sutton | - | | Tower Hamlets | South Quay Masterplan SPD | | Waltham Forest | Blackhorse Lane AAP | | | Housing Delivery SPD draft | | | Norlington Road Industrial Site SPD draft | | | South Grove/St James SPD2015 | | | Public Houses SPD 2015 | | Wandsworth | Local Plan: employment and industry review Prep Stage | | | Historic Environment SPD draft | | | Lombard Road/York Road Riverside Focal Point SPD draft | | | Housing SPD draft | | | Roehampton SPD draft | | | Planning Obligations SPD 2015 | | | Town Centre Uses SPD 2015 | | | Housing Standards Review - transitional arrangements guidance note | | Westminster | Draft CIL charging schedule |

Source: London Boroughs/GLA

### PROGRESS WITH LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGIES

3.69 Table 3.9 provides an overview of London borough Core Strategy progress.

| CORE STRATEGY STAGE | NO. OF BOROUGHS | BOROUGH | |----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published | 0 | | | Have published Core Strategy Policy Options and preferred strategy | 1 | Bromley | | Have published Core Strategy for Submission | 0 | | | Core Strategy adopted | 33 | Barking and Dagenham (July 2010) | | | | Barnet (Sep 2012) | | | | Bexley (Feb 2012) | | | | Brent (July 2010) | | | | Camden (Nov 2010) | | | | City of London (Sep 2015) | | | | Croydon (April 2013) | | | | Ealing (April 2012) | | | | Enfield (Jan 2014) | | | | Greenwich (July 2014) | | | | Hackney (Nov 2010) | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham (Oct 2011) | | | | Haringey (March 2013) | | | | Harrow (Feb 2012) | | | | Havering (2008) | | | | Hillingdon (Part 1 Nov 2012) | | | | Hounslow (2015) | | | | Islington (Feb 2011) | | | | Kensington & Chelsea (2010) | | | | Kingston upon Thames (April 2012) | | | | Lambeth (Jan 2011) | | | | Lewisham (June 2011) | | | | London Legacy Development Corporation (July 2015) | | | | Merton (2011) | | | | Newham (Jan 2012) | | | | Redbridge (March 2008) | | | | Richmond upon Thames (2009) | | | | Southwark (April 2011) | | | | Sutton (Dec 2009) |

### TABLE 3.9 LOCAL PLAN CORE STRATEGY PROGRESS (POSITION AS OF JANUARY 2016)

| CORE STRATEGY STAGE | NO. OF BOROUGHS | BOROUGH | |---------------------|-----------------|---------| | Local Plan being reviewed | 18 | Barking and Dagenham - Preparation\
Bromley – Preparation\
Camden - consultation draft\
Croydon - Preparation\
Haringey - Preparation\
Hammersmith & Fulham - Reg 18\
Havering - Preparation\
Hillingdon - Consultation draft\
Hounslow - Examination\
Islington – Preparation\
Kensington & Chelsea – Partial review Publication\
Lambeth – Examination\
Lewisham – Issues and options\
LLDC - Examination\
Redbridge\
Southwark - Preparation\
Wandsworth – Publication\
Westminster |

Source: ALBPO Local Plan Borough Updates

3.70 Please note that many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it. OPPORTUNITY AREAS AND AREAS OF INTENSIFICATION

3.71 Up-to-date details on all Opportunity Areas (OAs) and Areas of Intensification (AIs) are included in Annex 1 of the London Plan. The following three maps provide an overview of the current status and scale of all Opportunity Areas Planning Frameworks (OAPFs), which are facilitating the delivery of the OAs. For some Development Infrastructure Funding (DIF) studies are prepared to support the delivery of the infrastructure required.

3.72 In 2015 the Mayor of London published the City in the East brochure to promote the development of the east of London as an integrated part of the capital.

3.73 The OA boundaries shown on the following maps are indicative. For further information about the OAs see https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/opportunity-areas/opportunity-areas

MAP 7 OPPORTUNITY AREAS: PROJECTED HOUSING

Projected Homes

- 20,000 - 32,000
- 8,700 - 20,000
- 5,000 - 8,700
- 1,500 - 5,000
- 0 - 1,500

© Crown Copyright and database right 2015. Ordnance Survey 100032216 GLA MAP 8 OPPORTUNITY AREAS: PROJECTED JOBS

Projected Jobs

- 75,000 - 110,000
- 50,000 - 75,000
- 15,000 - 50,000
- 4,000 - 15,000
- 0 - 4,000 MAP 9 OPPORTUNITY AREAS: DELIERY STATUS

| REF | LOCATION | REF | LOCATION | REF | LOCATION | |-----|---------------------------------|-----|---------------------------------|-----|---------------------------------| | 1 | Bexley Riverside | 14 | Harrow and Wealdstone | 27 | Old Oak Common | | 2 | Bromley | 15 | Heathrow | 28 | Royal Docks and Beckton Waterfront | | 3 | Canada Water | 16 | Ilford | 29 | Southall | | 4 | Charlton Riverside | 17 | Isle of Dogs | 30 | Thamesmead and Abbey Wood | | 5 | City Fringe/Tech City | 18 | Kensal Canalside | 31 | Tottenham Court Road | | 6 | Colindale/ Burnt Oak | 19 | King's Cross-St Pancras | 32 | Upper Lea Valley (including Tottenham Hale) | | 7 | Cricklewood/Brent Cross | 20 | Lewisham-Catford-New Cross | 33 | Vauxhall/Nine Elms/Battersea | | 8 | Croydon | 21 | London Bridge/ Bankside | 34 | Victoria | | 9 | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside | 22 | London Riverside | 35 | Waterloo | | 10 | Earl's Court / West Kensington | 23 | Lower Lea Valley including Stratford | 36 | Wembley | | 11 | Elephant and Castle | 24 | Old Kent Road | 37 | White City | | 12 | Euston | 25 | Paddington | 38 | Woolwich | | 13 | Greenwich Peninsula | 26 | Park Royal/Willesden Junction | PLANNING DECISIONS

3.74 To bring about positive change on the ground, policies need to be implemented. This is why the role of development management is so crucial. Table 3.10 highlights the ongoing work of the Mayor’s Development & Projects Team in helping to implement the London Plan. The table shows a continuing high volume of referrals to the Mayor. This year has seen referrals rise by 22% over 2014. The Mayor is increasing the use of his strategic powers to call-in applications. Last year he ‘called-in’ five schemes:

- 56-70 Putney High Street, Wandsworth;
- Trocoll House, Barking and Dagenham;
- Blossom Street, Tower Hamlets;
- Monmouth House, Islington; and
- Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Hackney and Tower Hamlets.

| TABLE 3.10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS REFERRED TO THE MAYOR | |--------------------------------------------------------| | 2000-2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | TOTAL 2000-2014 | |-----------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------| | Total | 1,871| 334 | 240 | 258 | 300 | 307 | 359 | 373 | 454 | 4496 | | Strategic Call-ins | - | - | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 14 |

Source: GLA Planning LONDON PLANNING AWARDS

3.75 The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 13th London Planning Awards were held on 3rd February 2016. Full details of the winning entries are given in Table 3.11.

| TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS | |-----------------------------------------------| | ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 3RD FEBRUARY 2016 |

**Best New Place to Live**

**Trafalgar Place**

Designed by dRMM Architects for Lend Lease. This is the first phase of the Heygate Estate regeneration. It comprises 235 high quality homes, accommodating a range of apartments and family sized townhouses, 25% of which are affordable. The scheme is within walking distance of Elephant and Castle, providing range of facilities and great transport connections. The development has been laid out to integrate to the surrounding neighbourhood, adding to the areas permeability and public realm network. Additional public open space is provided along a new pedestrian street which runs through the middle of the site, a new children’s play space, and generous footways and spaces around the buildings. The development also experiments with the use of engineered timber construction, providing further testing of this innovative and sustainable construction method and bringing it into large mainstream developments.

**Best New Place to Work**

**Roundhouse Administration Building**

The Roundhouse administration building, conceived by Urban Space Management and the Roundhouse. Constrained by the listed building, finance and the urgent need for additional space, the Roundhouse have located their administration roles in a new office block adjacent to the listed building. Given the time and money constraints of the charity it was decided that the new office block would be made from recycled shipping containers, costing half the price and taking one third of the time a similar size conventionally constructed office building would have taken. The container aesthetic fits in seamlessly with the railway siding character of the site and the industrial heritage of the Roundhouse itself. The success of the strategy is evident by how well used and vibrant the new office space.

### TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS

ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 3RD FEBRUARY 2016

| Category | Project Name | Description | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Best Community Led Project** | Stamford Hill Area Action Plan| Stamford Hill Area Action Plan. After a public and divisive argument between two local community groups trying to create opposing Neighbourhood Plans, officers in Hackney Council decided to arbitrate. Both community groups had huge local support but vastly different agendas in relation to planning. After several failed attempts to bring them together, the Council developed an alternative approach where they set up a Community Panel with representatives from both community groups, other key community group representatives, faith groups and local Councillors’, reflecting the true demographic, faith and ethnic profile of the diverse community in Stamford Hill. This new group are now successfully working together with the council to develop the Stamford Hill Area Action Plan. | | **Best Heritage Led Project** | Seven Pancras Square | Seven Pancras Square. Refurbished as part of the King’s Cross redevelopment, the Grade II Stanley Building (now Seven Pancras Square) was originally one of five near identical blocks of philanthropic flats built in the 1860’s. The domestic scale of the building presented challenges in terms of room size and floor to ceiling heights and required carefully considered upgrades and insertions, alongside significant enhancements to its structure and fabric to serve its new use. The architecture takes on these challenges and plays on the contrast between the old and new, creating a contemporary wrap to the historic building, within which the main entrance, communal spaces and circulation space is located. This contrast creates a dramatic entrance lobby perfectly in line with the buildings proposed new use and users. | | TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS | |---------------------------------------------| | ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 3RD FEBRUARY 2016 |

**Best New Public Space**

**Holborn Circus and St Andrew Holborn Church Garden Enhancement Scheme**

Holborn Circus and St Andrew Holborn Church Garden Enhancement Scheme. It is a challenge to understand the transformative impact that this understated street junction scheme has had, without knowing what was there before. The contentions moving of the Prince Albert statue a few metres to the west allowed the accident prone ‘circus-turned-roundabout’ to be reconfigured, reducing the total number of arms at the junction, hugely increasing pedestrian space and creating a space large enough to provide seating and respite in front of the St Andrews Church gardens. The scheme came hand in hand with the re-landscaping of the church garden, which further contributed to rebalancing pedestrian and vehicular activity in this historically important location.

**Best Town Centre Project**

**BL-NK Curtain Road**

BL-NK is a meanwhile use run by Hackney Council that provides meeting rooms and event spaces for small businesses and non-profit organizations in a prime location in central London. Much of the space is provided either free of charge or is heavily discounted, encouraging a wide range of users to use a part of the city that would normally be unaffordable to most. The use of the space is carefully curated to as to encourage collaboration between different businesses and voluntary groups and build a growing network of small enterprises. The venue itself is furnished by local designers and makers, who are also promoted in the small ground floor retail space of the venue that includes a coffee shop to support its viability.

### TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS

ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 3RD FEBRUARY 2016

| Category | Project Name | Description | |---------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **Best Project 5 Years on** | Hackney Marshes Centre | Designed by Stanton Williams architects and completed in 2010, this small but significant intervention has dramatically improved the use of the marshes as a football facility. With over 1500 people using the changing room a week, as well as visitors to the café and educational facilities, the venue is heavily used. The robust design of the building, with its weathered steel cladding and gabion walls makes it practically vandal proof, and despite it being accessible 24h and lacking overlooking, its external skin needs very little maintenance and looks as it did when it first opened. The low maintenance ethos was also applied internally and after years of heavy use, there’s only been a requirement to replace an occasional door. | | **Best Conceptual Project** | Bridging East London | We’ve seen our fair share of bridge proposals over the last year, but this multi-bridge proposal by Farrels Architects puts the importance of bridging across the river in context. It shows how the more humble, low-level bascule bridges can provide walking, cycling and public transport connections which would be enough to unlock large areas of underdeveloped land in London’s eastern Opportunity Areas. The study shows that whilst there are 34 bridges across the Thames in London, there is only one, east of Tower Bridge, and identifies 7 locations where these bridges could be the most feasible and beneficial. | | **Best Local Planning Authority** | City of Westminster | |

### TABLE 3.11 LONDON PLANNING AWARDS – WINNERS

ENTRY DESCRIPTIONS AND AWARD CITATIONS TAKEN FROM THE MAYOR’S AND SIR EDWARD LISTER’S SPEECHES AT THE LONDON PLANNING AWARDS CEREMONY, CITY HALL 3RD FEBRUARY 2016

| Mayors Award for Planning Excellence | |-------------------------------------| | **Trafalgar Place** |

Designed by dRMM Architects for Lend Lease. This is the first phase of the Heygate Estate regeneration. It comprises 235 high quality homes, accommodating a range of apartments and family sized townhouses, 25% of which are affordable. The scheme is within walking distance of Elephant and Castle, providing range of facilities and great transport connections. The development has been laid out to integrate to the surrounding neighbourhood, adding to the areas permeability and public realm network. Additional public open space is provided along a new pedestrian street which runs through the middle of the site, a new children’s play space, and generous footways and spaces around the buildings. The development also experiments with the use of engineered timber construction, providing further testing of this innovative and sustainable construction method and bringing it into large mainstream developments. CHAPTER 4 OTHER CONTEXTUAL DATA SOURCES This AMR cannot and does not attempt to be comprehensive. There is also a significant amount of relevant data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links provided here should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.

A full list of publications from the Demography and Policy Analysis Group is available via the GLA’s website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/mayor/publications/gla-intelligence/demography

**LONDON DATASTORE**

The primary source of data and statistics held by the GLA is the London Datastore. http://data.london.gov.uk/ which includes data not just from the GLA but also a range of other public sector organisations.

**LONDON DEVELOPMENT DATABASE**

For more information on the London Development database Email the LDD Team (lddteam@london.gov.uk). The re-launched LDD public page can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/ldd/

**DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECTS**

More information on the activities of the Mayor’s Development and Projects unit (Formerly the Planning Decisions Unit) can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications

**GLA ECONOMICS REPORTS**

The latest reports can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/business-economy/publications

For the latest news the Mayor’s Business and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/business-economy

The London Sustainable Development Commission website is at http://www.londonsdc.org/

**LONDON ENERGY PARTNERSHIP**

Full details can be found on the website http://www.lep.org.uk/ OTHER LONDON DATA SOURCES

WASTE

The Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/environment/publications/the-mayors-waste-management-strategies

DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/

Up to date London specific data is available on the Local Authority Waste and Recycling Information Portal http://laportal.wrap.org.uk/Login.aspx

MINERALS (AGGREGATES)

Information on the London Aggregates Working Party (LAWP), including Annual Monitoring Reports, can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/research-reports/london-aggregates-working-party-0

WATERWAYS

The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php

TRANSPORT

The latest information on The Mayor’s work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport

Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx and at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/investorrelations/1458.aspx

Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels/resource/86bbffe1-8af1-49ba-ac9b-b3eacaf68137

A map based PTAL calculator can be found at http://www.webptals.org.uk/

The Department for Transport provides some useful data on transport at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport

London First are monitoring how the London boroughs are progressing with the development of their CIL charging schedules http://londonfirst.co.uk/our-focus/londons-built-environment/community-infrastructure-levy/ HEALTH

London Health Programmes uses health intelligence to identify health needs of Londoners and to redesign services. http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/

London Health Observatory monitors health and healthcare in the capital. http://www.lho.org.uk/

As of April 2013 the LHO became part of Public Health England. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england

GOVERNMENT DATA SOURCES

Government departments have moved their websites to a central domain, https://www.gov.uk/. It is likely that any links to websites outside gov.uk will cease to function in the near future.

Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education, which contains a section on Research and Statistics.

Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?departments%5B%5D=department-for-education

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Various data and studies on the environment can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-environment-food-rural-affairs

DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The latest information on Government policies and publications related to planning can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/planning-and-building CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING AHEAD 5.1 This AMR covers a period when at national level we are seeing a range of important reforms to the planning system emerging. In London the new 2015 London Plan has been published rolling the Plan forward to 2036, particularly within the context of the strong population growth from the 2011 Census. The next AMR will be the first to be based on this new Plan. Minor alterations to address the Government’s Housing Standards Review and Government policy on parking have also recently been published. In addition, further Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents (Social Infrastructure, Interim Housing and draft Central Activity Zone) and several Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPFs) were produced during 2015. Finally, it should be noted that the Mayor is calling in more strategic applications and has seen more referrals than ever before with 20% more than in the previous year.

5.2 Looking forward and following the Mayoral election in May, the first substantial steps towards the preparation of a Full Review of the London Plan will be made. The AMR, and in particular the LDD underpinning it, is an invaluable source to inform its evidence base.

5.3 The continued exploration of innovative new ways to use the planning system to help deliver strategic infrastructure will also continue to be a priority to help ensure that growth and development is sustainable. This will be continue to be facilitated by the London Infrastructure Plan. The AMR/LDD are also supporting its activities.

5.4 Robust, evidence-based and effectively monitored strategic planning policy for London continues to be vital if the progress shown across many of the indicators in this report is to be sustained, and even more so to address the areas where further work is needed. This AMR again makes plain that the planning system has much to contribute to Londoners’ quality of life – and there is a huge amount of activity at City Hall, in boroughs and neighbourhoods to make sure all opportunities are maximized. Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:

Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA

Telephone 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk

You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.

If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.

Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件， 請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡

Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chỉ dưới đây.

Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος eγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυ- δρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.

Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित संख्या पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गए पते पर संपर्क करें

Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হল নিচের ফোন নম্বরে বা তিনিয়ের অনুরূপ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।

Turkish Bu belgenin kendi dilindeki hazırlanmış bir versiyonunu edinebilirsiniz, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresine başvurunuz.

Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاپوز کی نقل اینی زبان می جاہتی ہیں، تو براہ کرم نچی دنی گی نمبر بر فون کریس یا دنی گی ہیں بر رابطہ کریں

Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أثناء

Gujarati ની તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નકલ તમારી ભાષામાં પ્રાપ્ત કરવી તો, કૃપયા કરી આધીન નંબર ઉપર કોણ કરી અથવા નીચેના સરનામે સંપર્ક કરો.